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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, line 11) “a bottom of a boom arm section” should be changed to “the bottom of the boom arm section” since this limitation was already recited in line 9.
(claim 8, line 1) “a top of a boom arm section” should be changed to “the top of the boom arm section” since this limitation was already recited in claim 1.
(claim 13, line 1) “The system of claim 12” should be changed to “The system of claim 1” since claim 12 has been cancelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "wherein the arm is mounted to the top of the boom arm section of the boom and is dispose to pivot downward for storage and upward for deployment" in lines 1-2. It is unclear, based on the claim language, how the arm is mounted to the top of the boom arm section of the boom when the arm is mounted to a bottom of the boom arm section of the boom, or in a position between the top and the bottom of the boom arm section of the boom as recited in claim 1. Clarification is needed.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leithold (EP 2586304).
As concerns claim 1, Leithold shows a system comprising: a boom (3); an arm (14, 15, 16, 31) attached (via 12) to the boom (Fig. 2, 5-6d, 8, 10 & 11); a camera (9) connected (via 13) to the arm (Fig. 2, 5-6d, 8, 10 & 11); and an actuator (17) to adjust an angle between the arm and the boom to any value from 0° to 180° (Fig. 5 & 6a-6d); wherein a distance between the boom and the camera is adjustable (Fig. 5, 10 & 11), an angle between the arm and the boom is adjustable (Fig. 5), and the camera is rotatably connected (pivotally connected to arm 14 & hinged to arms 15, 16) to the arm (Fig. 6a & 6d), and wherein the arm is mounted in a position between a top and a bottom of a boom arm section of the boom (Fig. 2, 5, 8, 10 & 11).
As concerns claim 4, Leithold shows wherein the arm is a telescoping arm (31).
As concerns claim 5, Leithold shows wherein the arm is a scissor actuator or has a fixed length (Fig. 5 & 6a-6d).
As concerns claim 6, Leithold shows wherein the arm is pivotably attached to the boom (Fig. 5 & 6a-6d).
As concerns claim 7, Leithold shows wherein the arm pivots horizontally (about a horizontal axis) in a plane (H, L) parallel to a ground level (Fig. 4 & 5).
As concerns claim 11, Leithold shows wherein the arm pivots up or down for deployment and down or up for storage (Fig. 5).
As concerns claim 13, Leithold shows wherein the actuator comprises a hydraulic actuator (17), a pneumatic actuator, an electric linear actuator, or an electric rotary actuator.
As concerns claim 14, Leithold shows wherein the adjustments of the camera to the boom and the rotation of the camera cause a change in position of the camera (Fig. 2, 5-6d, 8, 10 & 11). Leithold teaches or suggests wherein the change in position of the camera is suitable to allow the camera to multitask and provides visual guidance, obstacle avoidance, capture images of plants or weeds, and monitor nozzle performance. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leithold alone.
As concerns claim 8, Leithold discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the arm is mounted to a top of a boom arm section of the boom and is disposed to pivot downward for storage and upward for deployment. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have mounted the arm to a top of a boom arm section of the boom and disposed the arm to pivot downward for storage and upward for deployment, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to mounting the arm in a position between the top and the bottom of the boom arm section of the boom and pivoting the arm upward for storage and downward for deployment. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with the arm mounted in a position between the top and the bottom of the boom arm section of the boom because the camera would still have been capable of monitoring tasks of the system during operation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that mounting the arm to a top of a boom arm section of the boom and disposing the arm to pivot downward for storage and upward for deployment would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Leithold to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Leithold does not teach or suggest an actuator to adjust an angle between the arm and the boom to any value from 0° to 180°, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Leithold shows an actuator (17) to adjust an angle between the arm (14, 15, 16) and the boom (3) to any value (90°) from 0° to 180° (Fig. 5). In other words, the claim only requires that the actuator is suitable to adjust an angle between the arm and the boom to at least one value from 0° to 180°. Therefore, Leithold meets the claim language.
As an alternative interpretation of the claim language, in response to applicant's argument that Leithold does not teach or suggest an actuator to adjust an angle between the arm and the boom to any and all values from 0° to 180°, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Leithold shows an actuator (17) suitable to adjust an angle between the arm (14, 15, 16) and the boom (3) to any and all values from 0° to 180° (Fig. 5). Furthermore, nothing in the disclosure of Leithold limits the interpretation that the actuator is suitable for pivoting the arm relative to the boom from 0° (upward position in Fig. 5) to 180° (downward position in Fig. 5). It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plogstedt (WO 2018/100168) shows a system comprising: a boom; an arm attached to the boom; a camera connected to the arm; and an actuator to adjust an angle between the arm and the boom; wherein a distance between the boom and the camera is adjustable, an angle between the arm and the boom is adjustable, and the camera is rotatably connected to the arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights