DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,795,568 to Christensen et al. (“Christensen”).
Regarding claim 1, Christensen discloses a system, comprising: an imaging device configured to obtain image data from a field of view outside of a vehicle (Col. 2, lines 1-2); a controller configured to analyze the image data and identify one or more vegetation features of a target vegetation within the field of view, the one or more vegetation features including one or more of a type of vegetation, a quantity of vegetation, a distance to or a size of vegetation (Col. 4, lines 23-65); and a directed energy system configured to direct one or more directed energy beams toward the target vegetation responsive to the controller identifying the one or more vegetation features (Col. 4, lines 23-65), wherein the controller is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the directed energy system from the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 14 to Col. 4, line 6; Col. 4, lines 33-37; see also Col. 2, lines 61-65) (the system of Christensen is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size) and the distance between the energy beam and the target vegetation; the system is also configured to determine whether the beam went off at an effective distance, thereby removing the determined amount of the vegetation. Therefore, the system of Christensen is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the directed energy system from the target vegetation).
Regarding claim 2, Christensen discloses the directed energy system is a laser system that emits laser energy (Col. 6, lines 10-19), and the controller is configured to control a power of the one or more directed energy beams to burn or irradiate a portion of the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 42-67).
Regarding claim 3, Christensen discloses the portion of the target vegetation is a patch of skin or bark, or leaves of the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 42-67; see also Col. 2, lines 26-33) (note: the system of Christensen is configured to direct energy beans towards a patch of skin, bark, or leaves).
Regarding claim 4, Christensen discloses the target vegetation comprises one or more weeds (Col. 2, lines 26-27), and the controller is configured to control the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto one or more meristems of the one or more weeds (Col. 3, lines 53-55) (note: meristems are located in the stem).
Regarding claim 7, Christensen discloses the controller is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that are removed based at least in part on an amount of power of the directed energy beams directed onto the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 14 to Col. 4, line 6; Col. 4, lines 33-37) (the system of Christensen is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size), and determine whether that amount of the target vegetation was removed based at least in part on the amount of power (i.e., whether the laser beam was at an effective power level to irradiate the target vegetation)).
Regarding claim 9, Christensen discloses a method, comprising: analyzing image data from a field of view adjacent to a vehicle (Col. 4, lines 23-65; Col. 8, lines 6-8); determining one or more vegetation features of target vegetation within the field of view to be removed (Col. 4, lines 23-65; Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 6); and directing one or more directed energy beams onto the target vegetation, and the one or more directed energy beams are controlled based at least in part on the one or more vegetation features (Col. 4, lines 23-65; Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 6); and determining an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the one or more directed energy beams from the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 14 to Col. 4, line 6; Col. 4, lines 33-37; see also Col. 2, lines 61-65) (the method of Christensen includes determining an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size) and the distance between the energy beam and the target vegetation; the method also includes determining whether the beam went off at an effective distance, thereby removing the determined amount of the vegetation. Therefore, Christensen discloses the step of determining an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the one or more directed energy beams from the target vegetation.)
Regarding claim 10, Christensen discloses controlling the one or more directed energy beams to be in a power range that is defined at least in part by (a) the one or more vegetation features, (b) a distance between a source of the directed energy beams and the target vegetation, or (c) both the one or more vegetation features and the distance (Col. 3, lines 14-21; Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 11, Christensen discloses the one or more vegetation features include one or more of a type of vegetation, a quantity of vegetation, or a size of vegetation about the target vegetation, and the method further comprises: controlling one or more of a power or a duration of the one or more directed energy beams based at least in part on the one or more vegetation features (Col. 3, line 42 to Col., 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 12, Christensen discloses the type of vegetation comprises one or more weeds (Col. 2, lines 26-27), and the method further comprises controlling the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto one or more meristems of the one or more weeds (Col. 3, lines 53-55) (note: meristems are located in the stem).
Regarding claim 15, Christensen discloses controlling an amount of the target vegetation to be affected based at least in part on an amount of power of the directed energy beams directed onto the target vegetation (Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 17, Christensen discloses a system, comprising: one or more imaging devices onboard one or more vehicles that are configured to obtain image data from one or more fields of view adjacent to the one or more vehicles (Col. 2, lines 1-2; Col. 8, lines 6-8); one or more controllers in communication with the one or more imaging devices that are configured to analyze the image data and determine one or more vegetation features of target vegetation within the one or more fields of view (Col. 4, lines 23-65); and one or more directed energy systems onboard the one or more vehicles that are configured to generate and direct one or more energy beams onto the target vegetation in response to the analysis of the image data and the determination of the one or more vegetation features (Col. 4, lines 23-65), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the one or more directed energy systems from the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 14 to Col. 4, line 6; Col. 4, lines 33-37; see also Col. 2, lines 61-65) (the one or more controllers of Christensen are configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size) and the distance between the energy beam and the target vegetation; the one or more controllers are also configured to determine whether the beam went off at an effective distance, thereby removing the determined amount of the vegetation. Therefore, the one or more controllers of Christensen are configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the directed energy system from the target vegetation).
Regarding claim 18, Christensen discloses the one or more controllers are configured to acquire directed energy data for directing the one or more directed energy beams (Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 19, Christensen discloses the one or more vegetation features include one or more of a type of vegetation, a distance of vegetation, a quantity of vegetation, or a size of vegetation to be removed (Col. 4, lines 23-65).
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.
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.
Claims 5, 8, 13-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied, respectively, to claims 3, 1, 11, 9, and 17, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0117215 to Sibley et al. (“Sibley”).
Regarding claim 5, Christensen teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the target vegetation comprises one or more trees, and the controller is configured to control the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees.
Sibley teaches a system, wherein the target vegetation comprises one or more trees, and a controller is configured to control the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees (¶¶ [0102], [0350]-[0356], [0359]-[0361]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Christensen such that the target vegetation comprises one or more trees, and the controller is configured to control the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees, as taught by Sibley, in order to get rid of unwanted trees (see, e.g., Christensen at Col. 2, lines 26-33; see also Sibley at ¶ [0107]).
Regarding claim 8, Christensen teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to operate a machine learning model to analyze the image data and identify the one or more vegetation features within the field of view using the machine learning model, and to determine whether the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system and a duration that the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system based at least in part on one or more vegetation features.
Sibley teaches a system, wherein the controller is configured to operate a machine learning model to analyze the image data and identify the one or more vegetation features within the field of view using the machine learning model, and to determine whether the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system and a duration that the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system based at least in part on one or more vegetation features (¶¶ [0103], [0115], [0298], [0361] see also ¶¶ [0102], [0350]-[0354], [0359]-[0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Christensen such that the controller is configured to operate a machine learning model to analyze the image data and identify the one or more vegetation features within the field of view using the machine learning model, and to determine whether the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system and a duration that the target vegetation should be irradiated by the directed energy system based at least in part on one or more vegetation features, as taught by Sibley, in order to optimize efficiency and accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Christensen teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the type of vegetation comprises one or more trees, and the method further comprises controlling the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees.
Sibley teaches a method, wherein the type of vegetation comprises one or more trees, and the method further comprises controlling the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees (¶¶ [0102], [0350]-[0356], [0359]-[0361]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Christensen such that the target vegetation comprises one or more trees, and the controller is configured to control the directed energy system to direct the one or more directed energy beams onto bark of the one or more trees, as taught by Sibley, in order to get rid of unwanted trees (see, e.g., Christensen at Col. 2, lines 26-33; see also Sibley at ¶ [0107]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Christensen and Sibley teaches each and every element of claim 13, as discussed above, and it further teaches the amount of bark to be removed, burned or irradiated by the directed energy beams is determined based at least in part on the one or more vegetation features (Christensen at Col. 3, line 38 to Col. 4, line 6; Sibley at ¶ [0361]).
Regarding claim 16, Christensen teaches each and every element of claim 9, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach operating a machine learning model to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features within the field of view.
Sibley teaches a method, including the step of operating a machine learning model to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features within the field of view (¶¶ [0103], [0115], [0298]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Christensen to further include the step of operating a machine learning model to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features within the field of view, as taught by Sibley, in order to more accurately identify the unwanted vegetation.
Regarding claim 20, Christensen teaches each and every element of claim 17, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the one or more controllers are configured to operate one or more machine learning models to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features.
Sibley teaches a system, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to operate one or more machine learning models to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features (¶¶ [0103], [0115], [0298]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Christensen to further include the step of operating a machine learning model to analyze the image data and determine the one or more vegetation features within the field of view, as taught by Sibley, in order to more accurately identify the unwanted vegetation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Christensen discloses that the system/controller is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the directed energy system from the target vegetation (Col. 3, lines 14 to Col. 4, line 6; Col. 4, lines 33-37; see also Col. 2, lines 61-65). Specifically, the system/controller of Christensen is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size) and the distance between the energy beam and the target vegetation; the system/controller is also configured to determine whether the beam went off at an effective distance, thereby removing the determined amount of the vegetation. Therefore, the system/controller of Christensen is configured to determine an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the directed energy system from the target vegetation.
Similarly, the method of Christensen includes determining an amount of the target vegetation (i.e., the size) and the distance between the energy beam and the target vegetation; the method also includes determining whether the beam went off at an effective distance, thereby removing the determined amount of the vegetation. Therefore, Christensen discloses the step of determining an amount of the target vegetation that is removed based at least in part on a distance of the one or more directed energy beams from the target vegetation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643