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 .
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.
Claims 21-35, and 39-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the instant application merely broadens the patented language the limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling.
Claims 21-35, and 39-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the instant application merely broadens the patented language the limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling.
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 21, 23, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 21, 23, and 35 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining data and output signals based on the data. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 21, 23, and 35 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 21, 23, and 35 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 21, 23, and 35 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 22, and 30 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 22 recites the limitation "the control system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first material delivery system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first material time delay" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-31, 35, 39-43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoller et. al. (PCT/US1849540; US Patent Publication 2021/0068338 used for citation)
Regarding claim 21, Stoller discloses a material application system comprising; a first delivery system, of a material application machine, (abstract; ¶40)
configured to deliver a first material to an agricultural worksite; (¶30)
a second material delivery system, of the material application machine, configured to deliver a second material to the agricultural worksite, the second material different in type than the first material; (¶39, 45-47)
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: (¶95, 98, 107)
obtain data indicative of a first material location; and (¶81, 111)
control the second material delivery system based, at least, on the data indicative of the first material location. (¶39, 59-60)
Regarding claim 22, Stoller further discloses wherein the second material delivery system includes a rotatable motor and (¶61)
wherein the control system is configured to control when the motor begins rotation and how long the motor rotates based, at least, on the data indicative of the first material location. (¶61)
Regarding claim 23, Stoller further discloses a first material sensor configured to detect the first material and to generate sensor data indicative of the detected first material, wherein the data indicative of the first material location comprises the sensor data. (¶31)
Regarding claim 24, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: identify a travel speed of the material application machine; (¶81)
identify a time when the first material sensor detected the first material; (¶42, 59-60)
identify a distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system; and (¶81-82)
control the second material delivery system based, at least, on the travel speed of the material application machine, the time when the first material sensor detected the first material, and the distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system. (¶81-82)
Regarding claim 25, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: identify a desired band length of the second material; and (¶88-94)
control the second material delivery system based on, at least, on the travel speed of the material application machine, the time when the first material sensor detected the first material, the distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system, and the desired band length of the second material. (¶81-82)
Regarding claim 26, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: identify a desired delivery location of the second material; and (¶46, 56)
control the second material delivery system based on, at least, on the travel speed of the material application machine, the time when the first material sensor detected the first material, the distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system, and the desired delivery location of the second material. (¶81-82)
Regarding claim 27, Stoller further discloses wherein the desired delivery location of the second material overlaps a delivery location of the first material. (¶46)
Regarding claim 28, Stoller further discloses wherein the desired delivery location of the second material is after or before a delivery location of the first material. (Figs. 1A-1E, 2A; ¶35-38, ¶46)
Regarding claim 29, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to determine a first material time delay indicative of a time it will take for the first material to be on the agricultural worksite and to control the second material delivery system based, at least, on the data indicative of the first material location and the first material time delay. (¶81)
Regarding claim 30, Stoller further discloses wherein the first material delivery system comprises an assistive delivery system configured to move to deliver the first material to the agricultural worksite and (¶41)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to determine the first material time delay based, at least, on a speed of movement of the assistive delivery system. (¶81)
Regarding claim 31, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to determine a second material time delay indicative of a time it will take for the second material to be on the agricultural worksite and to control the second material delivery system based, at least, on the data indicative of the first material location and the second material time delay. (¶81)
Regarding claim 35, Stoller further discloses wherein the first material comprises seed and wherein the second material comprises one of fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, or pesticide. (¶39)
Regarding claim 39, Stoller further discloses a material application machine comprising: (abstract; ¶40)
a first delivery system, of a material application machine, configured to deliver a first material to an agricultural worksite; (¶30)
a second material delivery system, of the material application machine, configured to deliver a second material to the agricultural worksite, the second material different than the first material; (¶39, 45-47)
a first material sensor configured to sense the first material and generate sensor data indicative of a location of the first material; (¶81, 111)
a speed sensor configured to sense a travel speed of the material application machine; (¶102)
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: (¶95, 98, 107)
identify a time when the first material sensor sensed the first material; (¶42, 59-60)
identify a distance between the location of the first material and the second material delivery system; and (¶81-82)
control the second material delivery system to deliver the second material to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the travel speed of the material application machine, the time when the first material sensor detected the first material, and the distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system. (¶81-82)
Regarding claim 40, Stoller further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: identify a desired band length of the second material; and (¶88-94)
control the second delivery system to deliver the second material to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the travel speed of the material application machine, the time when the first material sensor detected the first material, the distance between the first material location and the second material delivery system, and the desired band length. (¶81-82)
Regarding claim 41, Stoller further discloses an agricultural system comprising: a furrow opener configured to open a furrow as the furrow opener is moved across a field; (abstract; ¶40)
a seed delivery system configured to deliver seeds to the furrow; a first actuator configured to be actuated to apply material to the field; (¶30)
a second actuator configured to be actuated to apply material to the field; and (¶39, 45-47)
a material application control system configured to generate a first actuator control signal to control the first actuator to apply material according to a first application pattern and (¶81; “timing can be used to apply the material to the selected area Timing takes into account the speed traveling through the field and the distance between seeds/plants to activate, deactivate, or divert flow of material to the selected area. … The application of material can be synchronized with the speed of travel and the distance between seeds/plants.”)
a second actuator control signal to control the second actuator to apply material according to a second application pattern. (¶39, 59-60)
Regarding claim 42, Stoller further discloses wherein the seed delivery system is configured to deliver the seeds to the furrow at seed locations and wherein the material application control system generates the first actuator control signal to control the first actuator to apply the material according to the first application pattern based on the seed locations. (¶81)
Regarding claim 43, Stoller further discloses a seed sensor configured to sense seed and generate a seed sensor signal based on sensed seed, the material application control system generates the first actuator control signal based on the seed sensor signal. (¶81, 111)
Regarding claim 45, Stoller further discloses wherein the first actuator is configured to be actuated to apply a first material and wherein the second actuator is configured to apply a second material that is different from the first material. (¶39, 45-47)
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 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Goldman et. al. (US Patent Publication 2011/0046776)
Regarding claim 32, Goldman discloses wherein the data indicative of the first material location comprises a prescriptive first material map, the prescriptive first material map mapping prescriptive first material locations at different locations at the agricultural worksite. (¶8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Stoller with wherein the data indicative of the first material location comprises a prescriptive first material map, the prescriptive first material map mapping prescriptive first material locations at different locations at the agricultural worksite as taught by Goldman with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 33, Goldman teaches a geographic position sensor configured to detect a geographic position of the material application machine, (¶23)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: determine a location at which first material was delivered to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the detected geographic position of the material application machine; (¶27-28, 30)
and predict a plurality of future first material locations indicative of predictive locations at which first material will be delivered to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the location at which the first material was delivered to the agricultural worksite, and wherein the data indicative of the first material location comprises a future first material location of the plurality of future first material locations. (¶30-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Stoller with a geographic position sensor configured to detect a geographic position of the material application machine, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: determine a location at which first material was delivered to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the detected geographic position of the material application machine; and predict a plurality of future first material locations indicative of predictive locations at which first material will be delivered to the agricultural worksite based, at least, on the location at which the first material was delivered to the agricultural worksite, and wherein the data indicative of the first material location comprises a future first material location of the plurality of future first material locations as taught by Goldman with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, and 44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious The material application system of claim 21, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:identify a responsiveness of the second material delivery system; andcontrol the second material delivery system based, at least, on the data indicative of the first material location and the responsiveness of the second material delivery system.
OR
The agricultural system of claim 41 wherein the first application pattern is different from the second application pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights