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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the conduit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer et al (20240099288) in view of Alcala et al (20190250647).
Regarding claim(s) 1, in making and/or using the device of Alcala, for measuring a flowrate (32) though a pulse width modulation valve 26 (Para 24), one would perform the steps of determining (Para 76, controlling to desired duty cycle would necessarily include determining the desired duty cycle) a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation valve 26; measuring a flowrate (by sensor 32) of a fluid through the pulse width modulation valve to determine a measured flowrate.
Maurer discloses providing a control signal as a duty cycle to the valve but fails to disclose correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle. Alcala teaches (Fig 9-12, Para 146) determining a control signal (position detection at 914 by detecting control signal from valve control 920, Para 127: “control signal directly from feedback controller 920 as a proxy for xi”) to a valve; measuring 912 a flowrate of a fluid through the valve to determine a measured flowrate; and applying a correction factor (slope, Para 146) to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the valve position control signal (control signal used as proxy for valve position, Para 127).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Maurer with calculating a corrected flow rate based on flow sensor reading and valve control signal as taught by Alcala in order to increase flow measurement accuracy. The valve control signals in Maurer as such modified include PWM duty cycle.
As to claim 3, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches a determining a control signal of the comprises determining the control signal (Fig 9, control signal from 920 to 910 determined by 914) provided to the valve (920 to valve controller 910), the control signal in Maurer being the duty cycle of PWM valve.
As to claim 4, 5, Maurer flowrate sensor 32 based on a frequency of a projectile 76 rotating within a body in fluid communication with the pulse width modulation valve 26 and measuring the flowrate based on a frequency of a projectile 76 rotating within the body and comprises measuring the frequency of the projectile with an optical sensor 116 (Para 60).
As to claim 6, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches determining the correction factor as a function of the (Para 146, slope is based on valve position which is control signal Para 127, the control being duty cycle in Maurer) duty cycle of the pulse width modulation valve.
As to claim 8, Maurer measuring a pressure of the fluid (sensor 34).
As to claim 10, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches applying a correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle comprises applying a correction factor comprising a mathematical equation (slop equation Para 146) based on valve position (control signal as valve position, which is duty cycle in Maurer).
As to claim 11, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches determining the correction factor with an equation (slope equation Para 146) based on at least the duty cycle fails to disclose using a look-up table instead of equation. However, Official Notice is taken that using a look-up table instead of equation, for the purpose deriving related parameter values are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ look-up table instead of equation in the device of Maurer as modified for the purpose of for the purpose deriving related parameter values as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Maurer discloses an agricultural machine, comprising: a vehicle (Para 20, 21, described as a truck which would inherently have chassis); a product tank 12 containing a fluid; a fluid distribution system in fluid communication with the product tank, the fluid distribution system comprising: at least one fluid outlet line (connection from 14 to 18) configured to deliver the fluid to an agricultural field; a pulse width modulation valve 26 in fluid communication with the at least one fluid outlet line; and a flow sensor 32 configured to measure a flowrate of the fluid through the pulse width modulation valve.
Maurer discloses providing a control signal as a duty cycle to the valve but fails to disclose correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle. Alcala teaches (Fig 9-12, Para 146) a sensor monitoring system determining a control signal (position detection at 914 by detecting control signal from valve control 920, Para 127: “control signal directly from feedback controller 920 as a proxy for xi”) to a valve; measuring 912 a flowrate of a fluid through the valve to determine a measured flowrate; and applying a correction factor (slope, Para 146) to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the valve position control signal (control signal used as proxy for valve position, Para 127).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Maurer with sensor monitoring system calculating a corrected flow rate based on flow sensor reading and valve control signal as taught by Alcala in order to increase flow measurement accuracy. The valve control signals in Maurer as such modified include PWM duty cycle.
As to claim 14, Maurer discloses a boom 14 comprising at least one boom arm (arms of 14 left and right of 16) configured to laterally extend from the chassis (product tank 12 would generally be on the chassis), the at least one fluid outlet line 40 operably coupled to the at least one boom arm (arms of 14 left and right of 16), wherein the at least one boom arm comprises a plurality of sprayer nozzle assemblies 18, each operably coupled to a pulse width modulation valve 26.
As to claim 16, each sprayer nozzle assembly comprises a flow sensor 34, wherein the flow sensor comprises an optical sensor 116 configured to measure a frequency about which a projectile 76 rotates within a housing of the sprayer nozzle assembly.
As to claim 19, Maurer discloses measuring a pressure of the fluid (sensor 34).
As to claim 20, Maurer discloses the agricultural machine further comprising agricultural implement comprising row units 96, at least one row unit in fluid communication with the fluid distribution system; and a flow sensor 34 in fluid communication with the pulse width modulation valve 26 and the conduit 92, wherein the at least one row unit comprises a conduit 92 in fluid communication with the fluid distribution system and the pulse width modulation valve 26.
As to claims 24, 25 Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches a determining a control signal of the comprises determining the control signal (Fig 9, control signal from 920 to 910 determined by 914) provided to the valve (920 to valve controller 910), the control signal in Maurer being the duty cycle of PWM valve.
As to claim 26, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches applying a correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle comprises applying a correction factor comprising a mathematical equation (slop equation Para 146) based on valve position (control signal as valve position, which is duty cycle in Maurer).
As to claim 27, Maurer (as shown by Alcala) teaches determining the correction factor with an equation (slope equation Para 146) based on at least the duty cycle fails to disclose using a look-up table instead of equation. However, Official Notice (same as above) is taken that using a look-up table instead of equation, for the purpose deriving related parameter values are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ look-up table instead of equation in the device of Maurer as modified for the purpose of for the purpose deriving related parameter values as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of copending Application No. 19217984 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of copending Application No. 19217984 anticipates all recitations of claim 1 except “applying a correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle”. However claim 22 of copending Application No. 19217984 recites “determining a corrected flowrate based on the measured flowrate and the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency”. The recitation “determining a corrected flowrate based on” is seen as equivalent to “applying a correction factor”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 19217966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 24 of copending Application No. 19217966 anticipates all recitations of claim 1 except “applying a correction factor to the measured flowrate to determine a corrected flowrate based on the duty cycle”. However claim 24 of copending Application No. 19217966 recites “determining a corrected flowrate based on the measured flowrate and the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency”. The recitation “determining a corrected flowrate based on” is seen as equivalent to “applying a correction factor”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights