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 .
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.
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:
Controller configured to determine a desired distribution profile in claim 9 and the claims that depend therefrom;
Controller configured to determine a localized air speed in claim 9 and the claims that depend therefrom;
Controller configured to determine a target characteristic in claim 9 and the claims that depend therefrom;
Controller configured to control an operating parameter in claim 9 and the claims that depend therefrom.
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 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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are 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(s) 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. The claims put forth a method of emitting fluid from a fluid dispersal system, that does not include a controller. The specification fails to provide support for a device, and puts forth the controller as a central element of the method. Because Applicant does not provide support for a method without a controller, the claims are recitations of new matter.
Claims 4 and 12-13 puts forth a method that includes controlling a parameter based upon ground speed and air speed. The disclosure does not put forth such a method. The methods are drawn to determining a parameter based upon ground speed or air speed. Because Applicant does not provide support for a method including determination based upon ground speed and air speed, the claims are recitations of new matter.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a controller. The specification puts forth that each of the steps of the method are completed by use of a controller. As such, the controller is essential to the device. As currently written, the claims put forth a method that may be practiced by hand. However, the specification does not provide support for such a configuration.
Claim 4 and 12-13 puts forth a method that includes determining a parameter based upon airspeed and ground speed. The limitations are unclear, as the disclosure provides support for determination based upon either ground speed or airspeed. It is unclear how a device will include both elements, as ground implements do not include airspeed and based upon Applicants disclosure, the device focuses on use of aircraft during flight, and not ground implementations.
Claims 8 and 15 puts forth a method that includes determining air speed of an orchard sprayer, and an operating parameter based upon said airspeed. It is unclear how an orchard sprayer has air speed, as an orchard sprayer is a ground spraying device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, 6-7, 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funseth (US 20150367358).
Regarding claim 1, Funseth discloses a method for emitting a fluid from a plurality of nozzle assemblies of a fluid dispersal system, said method comprising:
determining a desired distribution profile for the emitted fluid (Paragraph 56, flow rate or fluid pressure is determined); directing air into a path of the fluid emitted from the plurality of nozzle assemblies (Paragraph 56, the device is an aircraft, as such air is in the path of the fluid emitted during travel) (Fig. 39) ;
determining a localized air speed at each nozzle assembly (Paragraph 56, speed of the nozzle is determined);
determining a target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly of the plurality of nozzle assemblies (Paragraph 56, flow rate range is prescribed); and
controlling an operating parameter of a valve assembly of each nozzle assembly to obtain the respective target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly (Paragraph 56, pulse widths are modulated), wherein the operating parameter is controlled based on a difference between the determined localized air speed and a fluid exit velocity of the fluid emitted from the respective nozzle assembly (Paragraph 56, the pulse width is modulated to keep within the specified range based upon the speed of travel of the nozzle relative to the flow rate).
Regarding claim 6, Funseth puts forth the method in accordance with claim 1 wherein the fluid is selected from the group consisting of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and water (Paragraph 57, pesticides).
Regarding claim 7, Funseth discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein controlling the operating parameter of each valve assembly includes controlling at least one of a timing, a duration, a duty cycle percentage, a pulse frequency, and an extent to which the valve assembly is opened (Paragraph 56, pulse width).
Regarding claim 9, Funseth discloses a fluid dispersal system comprising:
a fluid reservoir configured to hold a quantity of fluid (Paragraph 88, source of fluid); a manifold assembly in fluid communication with said fluid reservoir (Figure 39 depicts the manifold spraying the fluid);
a plurality of individually controlled nozzle assemblies coupled in fluid communication with said manifold assembly, each respective nozzle assembly of said plurality of individually controlled nozzle assemblies configured to emit fluid (Abstract and paragraph 39); and
a controller (Paragraph 71, controller consoles) coupled to said plurality of individually controlled nozzle assemblies (Paragraph 71, the controller consoles open and close the valves), said controller configured to:
determine a desired distribution profile for the emitted fluid (Paragraph 56);
determine a localized air speed at each nozzle assembly (Paragraph 56);
determine a target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly of the plurality of nozzle assemblies (Paragraph 56, flow rate range); and
control an operating parameter of a valve assembly of each nozzle assembly to obtain the respective target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly, wherein the operating parameter is controlled based on a difference between the determined localized air speed and a fluid exit velocity of the fluid emitted from the respective nozzle assembly (Paragraph 56, pulse width of the valve is operated based on the air speed of the nozzle, relative to the flow rate to keep within a prescribed range of the flow rate).
Regarding claim 14, Funseth discloses the fluid dispersal system in accordance with claim 9, wherein the fluid is selected from the group consisting of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and water (Paragraph 57, pesticides).
Regarding claim 15, Funseth discloses the fluid dispersal system in accordance with claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to control an operating parameter of a valve assembly by adjusting at least one of a timing, a duration, a duty cycle percentage, a pulse frequency, and an extent to which the valve assembly is opened (Paragraph 56, pulse width).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations “said controller configured to: determine a desired distribution profile for the emitted fluid; determine a localized air speed at each nozzle assembly; determine a target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly of the plurality of nozzle assemblies; and control an operating parameter of a valve assembly of each nozzle assembly to obtain the respective target characteristic of the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly, wherein the operating parameter is controlled based on a difference between the determined localized air speed and a fluid exit velocity of the fluid emitted from the respective nozzle assembly, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the target characteristic by determining a desired droplet size for the fluid emitted from each nozzle assembly, and wherein the controller adjusts the operating parameter of the valve assembly based on the determined desired droplet size” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art. ‘358 fails to disclose adjusting an operating parameter based upon a desired droplet size. ‘545 puts forth a device that distributes granular material from an aircraft, based upon a desired distribution profile. While the disclosure of ‘545 considers aircraft speed, the disclosure does not consider localized air speed at a nozzle, or control based upon the difference between localized air speed and fluid exit velocity. ‘869, ‘546, and ‘492 each put forth devices that determine an operating parameter based on ground speed. However, the devices fail to account for air speed, which integrates a host of characteristics, including altitude and wind resistance. ‘869 mentions adaption of the system to aircrafts, but does not provide motivation to implement determination based upon air speed relative to fluid exit velocity. Therefore, the claims define over known prior art and are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights