DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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(s) (IDS) filed on 05/08/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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) 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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) “an agricultural applicator configured as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV),” as recited in claim 10.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burema et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0303814A1 (hereinafter, Burema).
Regarding Claim 1, Burema describes a method for performing an agricultural spraying operation (UAV ability to perform an agricultural spraying, Burema, Paragraph 0112 and Figures 5 and 14), the method comprising:
-receiving, with a computing system, data indicative of a field having a no-spray zone between spray zones, the spray zones including a first spray zone and a second spray zone (receiving information (i.e., mission plan) for spraying and not spraying segments of fields, Burema, Paragraphs 0110-0112 and Figures 14 and 31);
-generating, with the computing system, a flight plan across the field for an agricultural applicator based at least in part on the data indicative of the field, the agricultural applicator being configured as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) having an applicator tank for holding agricultural product configured to be dispensed within the spray zones, the flight plan including at least one pass extending from the first spray zone across the no-spray zone to the second spray zone (determining/generating mission information for spraying agricultural product onto a field, Burema, Paragraphs 0110-0112 and Figures 14 and 31); and
PNG
media_image1.png
87
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-controlling, with the computing system, the UAV to perform the flight plan (UAV performs mission plan, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0110).
Regarding Claim 2, Burema describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, with the computing system, application instructions based at least in part on the data indicative of the field and the flight plan, the application instructions indicating when the agricultural product should be dispensed from the UAV to spray within the first and second spray zones (sections set as spray or no spray, Burema, Paragraphs 0110-0112 and Figures 14 and 31); and controlling, with the computing system, the UAV to dispense the agricultural product based at least in part on the application instructions (UAV performs mission plan, such as dispensing the product, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112 and Figures 14 and 31).
Regarding Claim 3, Burema describes the method of claim 2, wherein the application instructions further indicate when the agricultural product should not be dispensed from the UAV to avoid spraying within the no-spray zone (UAV executes stop spray to stop spraying so product is not dispensed, Burema, Paragraph 0112).
Regarding Claim 4, Burema describes the method of claim 2, wherein generating the application instructions comprises determining the application instructions based at least in part on one or more of a speed of the UAV, a height of the UAV above the field, or a wind speed at the field (setting instructions (i.e., flight plan) based on speed of the UAV, height, or wind, Burema, Paragraphs 0060, 0066, 0068, and 0088).
Regarding Claim 5, Burema describes the method of claim 1, wherein generating the flight plan comprises:
-determining a time to turn at a boundary of the no-spray zone (instruction, which can be based off position for turning on or off the sprayer, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112 and Figures 14 and 31);
-determining a time to fly the UAV from the first spray zone, across the no- spray zone, to the second spray zone (mission planning can determine when to turn the sprayer command on and off, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112 and Figures 14 and 31);
-generating the flight plan with the at least one pass when the time to fly the UAV from the first spray zone, across the no-spray zone, to the second spray zone is less than the time to turn at the boundary of the no-spray zone (mission planning can determine when to turn the sprayer command on and off which can be based on items such as distance between zones, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112, 0088 and Figures 3, 13, 14, and 31); and
-generating the flight plan with one or more passes having a turn at the no-spray zone when the time to fly the UAV from the first spray zone, across the no-spray zone, to the second spray zone is greater than the time to turn at the boundary of the no-spray zone (mission planning can determine when to turn the sprayer command on and off which can be based on items such as distance between zones, speed of the UAV, wind, etc., Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112, 0088 and Figures 3, 13, 14, and 31).
Regarding Claim 6, Burema describes the method of claim 5, wherein determining the time to turn at the boundary of the no-spray zone comprises determining the time to turn at the boundary of the no-spray zone based at least in part on one or more of a speed of the UAV or a distance for performing the turn (mission planning can determine when to turn the sprayer command on and off which can be based on items such as distance between zones, position, location of fields, speed of the UAV, wind, etc., Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112, 0088, 0060, 0066, 0068, and Figures 3, 13, 14, and 31).
Regarding Claim 7, Burema describes the method of claim 5, wherein determining the time to fly the UAV from the first spray zone, across the no-spray zone, to the second spray zone comprises determining the time to fly the UAV from the first spray zone, across the no-spray zone, to the second spray zone based at least in part on one or more of a speed of the UAV, a total elevation change from the first spray zone, across the no- spray zone, to the second spray zone, or a total lateral distance from the first spray zone, across the no-spray zone, to the second spray zone (mission planning can determine when to turn the sprayer command on and off which can be based on items such as distance between zones, position, location of fields, height, speed of the UAV, wind, etc., Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112, 0088, 0060, 0066, 0068, and Figures 3, 13, 14, and 31).
Regarding Claim 8, Burema describes the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the UAV to perform the flight plan comprises automatically controlling the UAV to perform the flight plan (UAV performs mission plan, such as dispensing the product autonomously, Burema, Paragraphs 0109-0112 and Figures 14 and 31).
Regarding Claim 9, Burema describes the method of claim 1, further comprising presenting, with the computing system, the flight plan via a user interface, wherein controlling the UAV to perform the flight plan comprises automatically controlling the UAV to perform the flight plan upon receipt of an operator input indicative of accepting the flight plan in response to presenting the flight plan via the user interface (UAV performs mission plan, such as dispensing the product autonomously, based on user input, Burema, Paragraphs 0048, 0109-0112 and Figures 14 and 31).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights