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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the nozzles are arranged such that each nozzle sprays liquid on a region having a maximum lateral extent of less than 10 cm as recited in claim 9; and
the at least one nozzle is a component of an inkjet print head as recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saravanan et al., (US20220117210. Saravanan hereinafter) in view of McLeod et al. (US5010908. McLeod hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Saravanan discloses a system (Figs. 1-6) for (capable of) applying a liquid in a field for crop plants, comprising; a control unit (703); at least one storage container (706) for holding the liquid; at least one nozzle (704); at least one collection container (70T); means for conveying (via 702 and 708) the liquid from the at least one storage container in the direction of the at least one nozzle; means for conveying (pipe connecting 70T to 706. Fig. 2) the liquid from the at least one collection container in the direction of the at least one storage container; and at least one deflection device (72, 72A); wherein the control unit is configured to (capable of) cause the at least deflection device to change between a first state (stowed position. [0027]- [0032]) of at least two states and a second state (deflecting position) of the at least two states, wherein, in one of the at least two states, liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle is applied in the direction of a target object and, in the other state of the at least two states, the liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle is applied in the direction of the at least one collection container, characterized in that the deflection device comprises means of hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders (74HF, 74HS), wherein the means of hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders is configured for changing the deflection device from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state.
Saravanan fails to disclose wherein the deflection device comprises at least one air nozzle, wherein the at least one air nozzle is oriented such that an air flow emerging from the at least one air nozzle changes the deflection device from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state.
However, McLeod teaches a pneumatic cylinder (Figs. 1-11), the pneumatic cylinder comprises at least one air nozzle (60), wherein the at least one air nozzle is oriented such that an air flow emerging from the at least one air nozzle changes the deflection device from the first state (Fig. 4) to the second state (Fig. 5) and/or from the second state to the first state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, as taught by McLeod, to Saravanan’s deflection device, in order to perform the designated function (extend and retract) of a pneumatic cylinder (Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 2, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, McLeod further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle is movable (via spring 62), wherein the air flow moves the at least one nozzle from a first (fully retracted) position to a second (fully extended) position (Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 3, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle is tiltable (can be tilted base on the position of sprayer 700) between two positions (flat or hilly fields). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one nozzle is tiltable between two positions, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952). In the instant case, making the at least one nozzle movable relative to the at least one collection container is a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device of Saravanan. In Saravanan’s reference, the deflection device is movable relative to the at least one nozzle. The reversal of the essential working parts of the device resulted in the similar condition by moving from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state.
With respect to claim 4, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan fails to disclose wherein the at least one collection container is movable, wherein the air flow moves the at least one collection container from a first position to a second position.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one collection container is movable, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952). In the instant case, making the at least one collection container movable relative to the at least one nozzle is a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device of Saravanan. In Saravanan’s reference, the deflection device is movable relative to the at least one nozzle. The reversal of the essential working parts of the device resulted in the similar condition by moving from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state.
With respect to claim 5, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan fails to disclose wherein the at least one collection container is tiltable between two positions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one collection container is tiltable between two positions. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts (from tilting the deflection device relative to the nozzle versus tilting the at least one collection container relative to the nozzle) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
With respect to claim 6, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan and McLeod further disclose wherein the air flow (when fully extended) deflects the liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle in the direction of the at least one collection container.
With respect to claim 7, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to (capable of) receive a recognition signal (sensory information) from a sensor unit (sensors) and to control the at least one deflection device depending on the recognition signal ([0023]).
With respect to claim 8, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses wherein the system is a part of an agricultural machine (V and 700), a robot or a drone, or is connectable thereto.
With respect to claim 9, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, comprising a multiplicity of nozzles (704).
Saravanan and McLeod fail to disclose wherein the nozzles are arranged such that each nozzle sprays liquid on a region having a maximum lateral extent of less than 10 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each nozzle sprays liquid on a region having a maximum lateral extent of less than 10 cm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12, Saravanan discloses a method (Figs. 1-6) for (capable of) applying a liquid in a field for crop plants, comprising the steps of: moving a sprayer (V and 700) in or over the field for crop plants; conveying the liquid from at least one storage container (706) in the direction of at least one nozzle (704) during movement; and changing a deflection device (72, 72A) from a first state (stowed position. [0027]- [0032]) of at least two states to a second state (deflecting position) of the at least two states, wherein, in one of the at least two states, liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle is applied in the direction of a target object and, in the other state of the at least two states, the liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle is applied in the direction of least one collection container, wherein conveying means (pipe connecting 70T to 706. Fig. 2) convey the liquid from the at least one collection container into the at least one storage container; characterized in that the deflection device comprises means of hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders (74HF, 74HS), wherein the means of hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders is configured for changing the deflection device from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state; characterized in that the deflection device comprises at least one air nozzle, wherein the at least one air nozzle is oriented such that an air flow emerging from the at least one air nozzle changes the deflection device from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state.
However, McLeod teaches a pneumatic cylinder (Figs. 1-11), the pneumatic cylinder comprises at least one air nozzle (60), wherein the at least one air nozzle is oriented such that an air flow emerging from the at least one air nozzle changes the deflection device from the first state (Fig. 4) to the second state (Fig. 5) and/or from the second state to the first state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, as taught by McLeod, to Saravanan’s deflection device, in order to perform the designated function (extend and retract) of a pneumatic cylinder (Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 13, Saravanan’s method modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the liquid comprises one or more nutrients and/or one or more plant protection agents and/or one or more agents for treating seeds ([0003]).
With respect to claim 14, Saravanan’s method modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the target object is a plant or a group of plants or a part of a plant or multiple parts of a plant ([0003]).
With respect to claim 15, Saravanan’s method modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, comprising the steps of: moving the sprayer (using V) in or over the field for crop plants; conveying the liquid from the at least one storage container in the direction of the at least one nozzle during movement (via 702 and 708); receiving a signal (sensory information. [0023]) for the presence of a specific target object; and changing the deflection device from the first state to the second state, wherein the first state applies the liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle in the direction of the at least one collection container and the second state applies the liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle in the direction of the specific target object.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saravanan et al., (US20220117210. Saravanan hereinafter) in view of McLeod et al. (US5010908. McLeod hereinafter) and further in view of Kijlstra et al. (EP3610725 (IDS). Kijlstra hereinafter).
With respect to claim 10, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle, Saravanan further discloses the system as claimed in claim 1,further comprising a sensor unit (sensors. [0023]).
Saravanan and McLeod fail to disclose wherein the sensor unit comprises a camera and an analysis unit, wherein the camera is configured to produce image recordings of a target area, wherein the analysis unit is configured to analyze the image recordings, to recognize a specific target object and to transmit a recognition signal to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the at least one deflection device, in response to the transmission of the recognition signal, to direct liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle in the direction of the specific target object.
However, Kijlstra teaches a system (Figs. 1-6) for applying a liquid in a field for crop plants, comprising; a control unit (30), a sensor unit comprises a camera ([0105]) and an analysis unit (processing unit), wherein the camera is configured to (capable of) produce image recordings of a target area (railway track/field environment), wherein the analysis unit is configured to (capable of) analyze the image recordings, to recognize a specific target object (this UAV can log the position of the weed, in terms of the GPS position on the ground) and to transmit a recognition signal to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to (capable of) cause the at least one deflection device, in response to the transmission of the recognition signal, to direct liquid emerging from the at least one nozzle in the direction of the specific target object (the drones/UAVs that are to do the spraying, if the same as the ones used to acquire the imagery, can fly to the appropriate location using their GPS systems and spray a weed control chemical at that location. This enables one tethered UAV to acquire imagery of a weed and a determination can be made that it needs to be sprayed by a particular weed control chemical. [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor unit comprises a camera and an analysis unit, as taught by Kijlstra, to Saravanan’s system, in order to save money and improve efficiency ([0002]).
With respect to claim 11, Saravanan’s system modified by McLeod’s pneumatic cylinder with at least one air nozzle and Kijlstra’s camera, Saravanan further disclose the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the at least one nozzle is a component (nozzle orifice) of an inkjet print head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a system for applying a liquid in a field for crop plants: Tyler, Webb, Thomason, Lohr et al., McCollum, Field et al., Moore et al. and Scholbrock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights