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.
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 vibration amplification device” in claim 1.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: “propellers with blades” (par. 19) or “protuberances projecting from the walls” (par. 21).
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 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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear how the “at least one outlet orifice” can be configured “to convey said product towards said outlet orifice” since it appears to require the outlet orifice to convey said product to itself.
Claims 2-18 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “a vibration sensor” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because “at least one vibration sensor” was positively recited in line 9 of claim 1, on which claim 8 depends. As a result, it is unclear if claim 8 requires additional vibration sensors, or if it is referring to the at least one vibration sensor that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of “at least one nozzle”, “a spraying system”, “an orifice”, “a vibration sensor”, and “a computing unit” render the claim indefinite because each of these elements was positively recited in claim 1, on which claim 12 depends. As a result, it is unclear if claim 12 requires additional elements, or if it is referring to those already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said amplified electrical signal" in 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Finally, claim 12 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear which steps are optional and which are required. The optional step is recited in line 8, and the following lines recite further steps involving “the differential signal”, but it is unclear if the steps of “transporting said electrical signal” and “comparing said electrical signal” are also performed only if the optional step is performed.
Claims 13-18 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 12.
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited step is required only when the optional step of claim 12, from which it depends, is performed. If it is performed even when the step converting the electrical signal to a differential signal is not performed, it is unclear when the amplifying step must be performed.
Claim 18 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the term “beforehand”. The term “beforehand” requires further explanation to identify another event or action, and none is specified by the claim.
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 1-4, 7-8, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giles et al. (US 2006/0265106).
Regarding claim 1, Giles teaches a spraying system (10) for an agricultural sprayer (see fig. 1), comprising a spray boom (14) having a main duct (14c) and at least one nozzle holder (16) connected to the main duct (fig. 2),
the nozzle holder comprising:
a body housing a spray product inlet duct configured to be supplied with spray product via said main duct (fig. 2 – body is outer portion of 26 and is connected to the main duct 14c by an inlet in order to spray product, see par. 74);
at least one first nozzle (26a) for spraying said product, comprising at least one outlet orifice for said product and configured to be supplied with product via the product inlet duct and to convey said product towards said outlet orifice (par. 74);
at least one vibration sensor (30) housed in said body or connected to said nozzle (fig. 2);
said spray boom being configured to spray product through said first spray nozzle (par. 74);
said vibration sensor being configured to measure the vibrations of the body (par. 19);
the spraying system further comprising a vibration amplification device (attachment device “A”, see par. 73) located upstream of the spray nozzle outlet orifice (fig. 2 – “A” is arranged above, which is upstream from the outlet orifice of the nozzle), said amplification device being configured to amplify the vibrations of the body or nozzle (fig. 2 – the amplification device comprises protuberances projecting from the walls of the nozzle body; therefore, it is substantially identical to the recited structure); and
said spraying system further comprises a computing unit (par. 81 – “microprocessor”) configured to compare the measurement of the vibrations of the body or nozzle with a reference signal (par. 36, 70) to determine the clog state of said nozzle (par. 81).
Regarding claim 2, Giles teaches the spraying system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vibration sensor is a piezoelectric sensor (par. 79).
Regarding claim 3, Giles teaches the spraying system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vibration sensor is housed in the body of the nozzle holder, in the vicinity of the outlet orifice of said nozzle (par. 73 – “the module 30 can be manufactured with the nozzle assembly 26 as a single unit without requiring the attachment device A”).
Regarding claim 4, Giles teaches the spraying system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vibration sensor is further configured to transform the vibration measurement into an electrical signal (par. 43, 88).
Regarding claim 7, Giles teaches the spraying system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the nozzle holder comprises a plurality of spray nozzles (fig. 5A), the vibration sensor being configured to measure the vibrations of the body of each of the nozzles and to determine the clog state of each of the nozzles (par. 79).
Regarding claim 8, Giles teaches the spraying system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the nozzle holder comprises a plurality of spraying nozzles (fig. 5A), a vibration sensor being connected to each of the nozzles (fig. 5A – the vibration sensor is part of the nozzle assembly; therefore, it is connected to each of the nozzles) and being configured to measure the vibrations of each of the nozzles and determine their clog state (par. 79).
Regarding claim 12, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 1 and a method for detecting the clogging of the at least one nozzle of the spraying system (par. 42), comprising at least the following steps:
a step consisting in passing the spray product through an orifice of said nozzle (par. 74; fig. 5A);
a step consisting in measuring the vibrations of the nozzle body by means of a vibration sensor (par. 19);
a step consisting in converting the vibration measurement into an electrical signal (par. 43, 88);
an optional step consisting in converting said amplified electrical signal into a differential signal, by means of a board integrated into said vibration sensor (considered to be optional and therefore not required);
a step consisting in transporting said electrical signal, eventually converted into a differential signal (considered to be optional and therefore not required), to a computing unit of the spraying system (par. 36 – “networked” and “communicating”; par. 70);
a step consisting in comparing said transported electrical signal, if necessary converted into a differential signal (considered to be optional and therefore not required), with a reference signal (par. 36 – “a reference”).
Regarding claim 14, Giles discloses the method described regarding claim 12 and further wherein a step consisting in amplifying the electrical signal is interposed between said step consisting in converting the vibration measurement into an electrical signal (par. 76, 105) and said step consisting in converting said amplified electrical signal into a differential signal (considered to be optional and therefore not required), by means of a card integrated into said vibration sensor (par. 105 – “accelerometer 36 was coupled to a 4-channel ICP charge amplifier/signal conditioner”).
Regarding claim 15, Giles discloses the method described regarding claim 12 and further wherein the reference signal is a predetermined threshold value pre-stored in said computing unit (clm 43; par. 28).
Regarding claim 16, Giles discloses the method described regarding claim 12 and further wherein the reference signal corresponds to a threshold signal calibrated at the start-up of said at least one spray nozzle (par. 29).
Regarding claim 17, Giles discloses the method described regarding claim 12 and further wherein the spray boom comprises a plurality of spray nozzles and wherein the reference signal corresponds to an average of the electrical signals, optionally converted into differential signals (considered to be optional and therefore not required), conveyed from the other spray nozzles (par. 29).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giles in view of Pinkle (“The Why and How of Differential Signaling”).
Regarding claim 5, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 4, but not further wherein the vibration sensor is further configured to transform the electrical signal into a differential signal.
Pinkle teaches that differential signaling was a known way of transmitting one information signal (p. 1, ln. 11).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying system of Giles such that the vibration sensor is configured to transform the electrical signal into a differential signal since this was a known way of transmitting an information signal, as taught by Pinkle, and can be used with a lower supply voltage (Pinkle – p. 3, ln. 6--12).
Regarding claim 6, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 5, wherein said vibration sensor is configured to send the differential signal to the computing unit which is configured to compare said differential signal with a predetermined threshold signal (par. 36, 70).
Regarding claim 18, Giles discloses the detection method described regarding claim 17, but not further wherein the electrical signals are converted beforehand into differential signals.
Pinkle teaches that differential signaling was a known way of transmitting one information signal (p. 1, ln. 11).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Giles such that the electrical signals are converted beforehand into differential signals since this was a known way of transmitting an information signal, as taught by Pinkle, and can be used with a lower supply voltage (Pinkle – p. 3, ln. 6--12).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giles in view of Ballu (US 3,883,073).
Regarding claim 9, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the amplification device comprises propellers comprising blades configured to rotate in the spray product, so as to disrupt the flow of spray product passing through the nozzle.
Ballu teaches a spraying system for an agricultural sprayer (fig. 1) comprising a vibration amplification device (13) comprising a propeller comprising blades configured to rotate in the spray product (fig. 1), so as to disrupt the flow of spray product passing through the nozzle (fig. 1 – air from fan is directed to the spray from nozzles 11, and will disrupt the liquid being spraying; additionally, the air, which is also considered to be a component of the spray product, is disrupted as the blades rotate).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying system of Giles to further include an amplification device that comprises propellers comprising blades configured to rotate in the spray product, so as to disrupt the flow of spray product passing through the nozzle, as taught by Ballu, since this was known to amplify to spray area over which the spray product is dispersed.
Regarding claim 10, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the amplification device comprises protuberances projecting from the walls of the body, in the direction of the spray product passing through it and configured to disrupt said product.
Ballu teaches a spraying system for an agricultural sprayer (fig. 1) comprising a vibration amplification device (13) comprising protuberances (fig. 1 – the fan blades) projecting from the walls of the body, in the direction of the spray product passing through it (fig. 1 – blades extend in the axial direction) and configured to disrupt said product (fig. 1 – air from fan is directed to the spray from nozzles 11, and will disrupt the liquid being spraying; additionally, the air, which is also considered to be a component of the spray product, is disrupted as the blades rotate).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying system of Giles to further include protuberances projecting from the walls of the body, in the direction of the spray product passing through it and configured to disrupt said product, as taught by Ballu, since this was known to amplify to spray area over which the spray product is dispersed.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giles in view of Ferren et al. (US 2022/0062934).
Regarding claim 11, Giles discloses the spraying system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising a second sensor configured to measure the ambient noise of the spraying system, so that the measurement made by the vibration sensor can be compared with the measurement made by said second sensor.
Ferren teaches a spraying system for an agricultural sprayer comprising a second sensor (108f,h) configured to measure the ambient noise of the spraying system in order to identify clogged nozzles (par. 59).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying system of Giles to further include a second sensor configure to measure the ambient noise of the spraying system, as taught by Ferren, since this would provide an additional means for detecting an abnormal nozzle condition, which can be relied on to confirm the measurements of the vibration sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Giles discloses the detection method described regarding claim 12, but not further comprising a step of measuring the ambient noise, in particular prior to the step consisting in passing the spray product through an orifice of the said nozzle, the measurement of the ambient noise being filtered from the measurement of the vibrations of the body of the nozzle.
Ferren teaches a spraying system for an agricultural sprayer comprising a first sensor (108e,g) configured to measure vibrations (par. 59) and a second sensor (108f,h) configured to measure the ambient noise of the spraying system (par. 59), and comprising a step of measuring the ambient noise, in particular prior to the step consisting in passing the spray product through an orifice of the said nozzle (par. 152 – “the sensor in step 720 collects waveforms that may be considered baseline waveforms”), the measurement of the ambient noise being filtered from the measurement of the vibrations of the body of the nozzle (par. 152 – “…’remove’ the impact of background noise that does not reflect the condition of the respective nozzle element”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Giles to further comprise a step of measuring the ambient noise, in particular prior to the step consisting in passing the spray product through an orifice of the said nozzle, the measurement of the ambient noise being filtered from the measurement of the vibrations of the body of the nozzle, as taught by Giles. This was known to remove/ignore any irrelevant data, which will result in more reliable identification of a clogged nozzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Posselius et al. (US 10,391,510), Haider et al. (US 11,642,685), and Anderson (US 4,313,111) all disclose spraying systems having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights