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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 23, 2025. Claims 1-29 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on June 18, 2025, July 18, 2025, October 9, 2025, and November 17, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/651,059 filed May 23, 2024 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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. monitoring system… in claim 1. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at claim 27 of the original disclosure.
.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 18 is directed toward a method, and claim 27 is directed toward a system. Therefore, each of the independent claims 18 and 27 along with the corresponding dependent claims 19-26 and 28-29 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 18 and 27 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of the independent claims 18 and 27 are used for illustration:
Claim 18
A method of operating a pulse width modulation valve (Examiner notes that the body of the claim fails to include any operating steps), the method comprising:
measuring pressure data indicative of a fluid pressure with a pressure sensor upstream of a pulse width modulation valve, the pulse width modulation valve in fluid communication with a fluid distribution line (passive measuring of data using known sensors is considered field of use); and
based on the measured pressure data, determining at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve (a person may observe measured data results and mentally determine a duty cycle or modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve in at least some cases within the claimed accuracy level (i.e., no particular accuracy level required)).
Claim 27
A monitoring system for an agricultural machine, the monitoring system comprising:
at least one processor (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer), cause the monitoring system to:
receive, from a pressure sensor, a fluid pressure within a sensor housing upstream of a pulse width modulation valve of a fluid distribution system of the agricultural machine (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below); and
based on the fluid pressure, determine at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve e (a person may observe measured data results and mentally determine a duty cycle or modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve in at least some cases within the claimed accuracy level (i.e., no particular accuracy level required)).
As explained above, independent claims 18 and 27 recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 18 and 27 recite the additional elements of measuring pressure data…, at least one processor…, at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…, and receive, from a pressure sensor…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. measuring pressure data… found in independent claim 18. This limitation amounts to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
b. at least one processor… found in independent claim 27. This limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
c. at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium… found in independent claim 27. This limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
d. receive, from a pressure sensor… found in independent claim 27. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 18 and 27 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation of receive, from a pressure sensor… found in independent claim 27 and as recited above, is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of receive, from a pressure sensor… found in independent claim 27 is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. claim element… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 18 and 27 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 19-26 and 28-29 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 19-26 and 28-29, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 19-26 and 28-29 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 18-29 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that if the compensate step of claim 29 was clarified to require a physical change in the flowrate, it would be sufficient for overcoming the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-5, 7-12, 16-18, 20-21, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0253107 (hereinafter, “Madison”).
Regarding claim 1, Madison discloses An agricultural machine (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and [0023]), comprising:
a chassis (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and [0023]);
a product tank containing a fluid (see at least Fig. 2 and [0032]; the fluid tank);
a fluid distribution system in fluid communication with the product tank (see at least [0032]), the fluid distribution system comprising:
at least one fluid outlet line configured to deliver a fluid to an agricultural field (see at least [0032]; the nozzle assembly);
at least one pulse width modulation valve in fluid communication with the at least one fluid outlet line (see at least Fig. 2 and [0032]-[0033]; the pressure control valves connected to the nozzle assembly); and
at least one pressure sensor upstream of the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve),
the at least one pressure sensor configured to measure a fluid pressure proximate the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve); and
a monitoring system configured to determine at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the at least one pulse width modulation valve based on the fluid pressure (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; the controller may monitor and vary the fluid pressure based on the sensor feedback by controlling the duty cycle/frequency of the valve).
Regarding claim 2, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the agricultural machine comprises a crop sprayer (see at least [0024]; the fluid is applied to seeds and/or plants (i.e., crops)).
Regarding claim 3, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses further comprising a boom comprising at least one boom arm configured to laterally extend from the chassis (see at least Fig. 3 and [0033]; the boom pipe (i.e., boom arm)),
wherein the at least one fluid outlet line is operably coupled to the at least one boom arm (see at least Fig. 3 and [0033]; the nozzle (i.e., fluid outlet) is operably coupled to the boom pipe (i.e., boom arm)).
Regarding claim 4, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein:
the at least one pulse width modulation valve comprises a plurality of pulse width modulation valves (see at least [0031]-[0033]; valves control the flow of the pressurized fluid); and
the at least one boom arm comprises a plurality of sprayer nozzle assemblies (see at least [0031]-[0033]; there may be a plurality of nozzle assemblies),
each sprayer nozzle assembly operably coupled to one of the pulse width modulation valves of the plurality of pulse width modulation valves (see at least [0031]-[0033]; the valve(s) control the fluid flow through the nozzles).
Regarding claim 5, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein each sprayer nozzle assembly comprises a flow sensor (see at least [0040]; sensors may be used to determine the flow rate of the nozzle(s)).
Regarding claim 7, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the agricultural machine comprises an agricultural implement comprising row units, wherein at least one of the row units is in fluid communication with the fluid distribution system (see at least [0031]; row units may be in fluid communication with the nozzle assembly).
Regarding claim 8, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the at least one row unit comprises a conduit in fluid communication with the fluid distribution system and the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033]; the row unit may comprise a conduit in fluid communication with the nozzle and corresponding valve).
Regarding claim 9, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Madison discloses further comprising a flow sensor in fluid communication with the at least one pulse width modulation valve and the conduit and configured to measure a flowrate of fluid through the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 10, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the monitoring system is configured to determine a flowrate of the fluid flowing through the at least one pulse width modulation valve based on a measured flowrate and the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency of the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 11, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the chassis is supported by ground-engaging elements (see at least [0023]; the vehicle chassis may include wheels (i.e., ground-engaging elements)).
Regarding claim 12, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor is within a sensor assembly directly coupled to the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 16, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein:
the at least one fluid outlet line comprises a plurality of fluid outlet lines (see at least [0032]; the row unit (i.e., fluid outlet line) may include a plurality of nozzle assemblies, each comprising a fluid outlet line); and
the at least one pulse width modulation valve comprises a plurality of pulse width modulation valves (see at least [0032]; there may be more than one valve),
each fluid outlet line individually in fluid communication with one of the pulse width modulation valves (see at least Fig. 2 and [0031]-[0033]; all fluid outlet lines and valves are at least indirectly in fluid communication with one another).
Regarding claim 17, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor comprises a plurality of pressure sensors,
each pressure sensor operably coupled to and upstream of a pulse width modulation valve of the plurality of pulse width modulation valves (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve for each respective valve/nozzle/sensor).
Regarding claim 18, Madison discloses A method of operating a pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and the publication generally), the method comprising:
measuring pressure data indicative of a fluid pressure with a pressure sensor upstream of a pulse width modulation valve, the pulse width modulation valve in fluid communication with a fluid distribution line (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve); and
based on the measured pressure data, determining at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; the controller may monitor and vary the fluid pressure based on the sensor feedback by controlling the duty cycle/frequency of the valve).
Regarding claim 20, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein measuring pressure data comprises measuring the fluid pressure with a pressure sensor between the pulse width modulation valve and an inlet of a sensor housing in fluid communication with the fluid distribution line (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors, and all components may be in fluid communication between the fluid tank and the nozzle output).
Regarding claim 21, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Madison discloses further comprising measuring a flowrate of the fluid to determine a measured flowrate (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 25, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Madison discloses further comprising:
measuring, with a pressure sensor, a fluid pressure within each of a plurality of sensor assemblies each located upstream of a respective pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve); and
based on the fluid pressure of each of the sensor assemblies, determining at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the respective pulse width modulation valves e (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; the controller may monitor and vary the fluid pressure based on the sensor feedback by controlling the duty cycle/frequency of the valve).
Regarding claim 27, Madison discloses A monitoring system for an agricultural machine (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, [0023], [0032]-[0033], and [0040]-[0041]), the monitoring system comprising:
at least one processor (see at least [0033]; the controller); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (see at least [0033] and [0036]; the controller and corresponding memory), cause the monitoring system to:
receive, from a pressure sensor, a fluid pressure within a sensor housing upstream of a pulse width modulation valve of a fluid distribution system of the agricultural machine (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; pressure upstream of the valve may be sensed via a sensor positioned upstream of the valve); and
based on the fluid pressure, determine at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0040]-[0041]; the controller may monitor and vary the fluid pressure based on the sensor feedback by controlling the duty cycle/frequency of the valve).
Regarding claim 28, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 27. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the instructions cause the monitoring system to measure a flowrate of fluid through the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 29, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 28. Additionally, Madison discloses wherein the instructions cause the monitoring system to compensate the measured flowrate based on the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0031]-[0033] and [0040]; the flow rate may be determined through the at least one valve via one or more sensors and may alter the flow rate used by the monitoring system).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madison, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0025158 (hereinafter, “Maurer”).
Regarding claim 6, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. Maurer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the flow sensor comprises an optical sensor configured to measure a frequency about which a projectile rotates within a housing of the sprayer nozzle assembly (see at least [0034] and [0037]; a nozzle projectile frequency may be measured via an optical sensor).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Maurer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more precisely disseminate pesticides to crops in order to prevent, for example, pesticide resistance; see at least Maurer at [0003].
Claims 13-14 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madison, as applied to independent claims 1 and 18 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0048117 (hereinafter, “Schrader”).
Regarding claim 13, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13. Schrader, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one of:
an accelerometer configured to measure an acceleration of the at least one pulse width modulation valve; or
a magnetometer configured to measure at least one magnetic property caused by actuation of the at least one pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0061]; the hall-effect sensor (i.e., magnetometer)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Schrader, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the solenoid PWM control to achieve the desired flow; see at least Maurer at [0006].
Regarding claim 14, Madison discloses and Schrader teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Schrader teaches wherein the monitoring system is configured to determine the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency of the at least one pulse width modulation valve based on at least one of the acceleration of the at least one pulse width modulation valve or the at least one magnetic property (see at least [0061]; duty cycle of the PWM signal may be determined via a hall-effect sensor (i.e., magnetometer)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Schrader, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the solenoid PWM control to achieve the desired flow; see at least Maurer at [0006].
Regarding claim 23, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 23. Schrader, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising measuring at least one of vibrations of the pulse width modulation valve or at least one magnetic property caused by actuation of the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0061]; the hall-effect sensor (i.e., magnetometer)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Schrader, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the solenoid PWM control to achieve the desired flow; see at least Maurer at [0006].
Regarding claim 24, Madison discloses and Schrader teaches all of the limitations of claim 23. Additionally, Schrader teaches further comprising comparing the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency determined based on the fluid pressure to at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency determined based on at least one of the vibrations or the at least one magnetic property (see at least [0061]; the hall-effect sensor (i.e., magnetometer)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Schrader, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the solenoid PWM control to achieve the desired flow; see at least Maurer at [0006].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madison in view of Schrader, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0037598 (hereinafter, “Wonderlich”).
Regarding claim 15, Madison discloses and Schrader teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15. Wonderlich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the monitoring system is configured to compare the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency based on the fluid pressure to the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency based the at least one of the acceleration of the at least one pulse width modulation valve or the at least one magnetic property (see at least [0053]; the measured flow rate and the target flow rate are compared).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison, as previously modified by Schrader, with the teachings of Wonderlich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve precision of fluid flow estimations and controls; see at least Wonderlich at [0053].
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madison, as applied to claims 18 and 21 above, in view of Wonderlich.
Regarding claim 19, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19. Wonderlich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein measuring pressure data comprises measuring the fluid pressure within a sensor housing directly coupled to the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0053]; pressure within a single valve may be determined).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Wonderlich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve precision of fluid flow estimations and controls; see at least Wonderlich at [0053].
Regarding claim 22, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 22. Wonderlich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising determining a corrected flowrate based on the measured flowrate and the at least one of the duty cycle or the modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve (see at least [0053]; a corrected flow rate may be determined based on the difference between the actual flow rate and the target flow rate).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Wonderlich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve precision of fluid flow estimations and controls; see at least Wonderlich at [0053].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madison, as applied to independent claim 18 above, in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,311,004 (hereinafter, “Giles”).
Regarding claim 26, Madison discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. However, Madison fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 26. Giles, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining at least one of a duty cycle or a modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve comprises determining the at least one of a duty cycle or the modulation frequency of the pulse width modulation valve using pattern recognition (see at least Col. 6, Ln. 47-56; pattern recognition may be used to determine the modulation frequency).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Madison with the teachings of Giles, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve nozzle flow technology; see at least Giles at Background.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0348718 which relates to determining and adjusting flow through nozzle valves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights