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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 19-20 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-18 considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 7A-7C they appear to be copies of photographs or CAD files, as they contain grayscale shading. Details of the claimed invention are difficult to discern, and the drawings are not of sufficient quality so that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. See MPEP 608.02; 37 CFR 1.84. Additionally, Figures 7A-7C do not include any reference to elements mentioned in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “optionally” has been treated as “or”. If applicant has intended to positively recite this limitation, please remove the term, “optionally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the housing having the opening toward the ground is segmented, wherein individual segments in the housing, arranged horizontally, move independently, or wherein the housing having an opening toward the ground comprises a rigid upper half and a flexible lower half, where the flexible lower half can move in the vertical direction”. The specification mentions a segmented housing in paragraphs [0022]-[0026] and [0045], referencing figures 7A-7C. However, it is unclear what is being shown in figures 7A-7C and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter in view of applicant’s disclosure, even in view of the replacement drawings filed 04/01/2026. For example, the drawings now show housing element 108 in Figure 1C, which appears to generally point to the element that encases elements including the flexible electrodes. However, it is unclear how this housing translates to the housing shown in figures 7A-7C, especially because no elements are shown in figures 7A-7C, and it is further unclear how the electrodes are configured and arranged with this housing.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Claim 16, depending claim 15 above, is rejected the same.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettiol et al. (US 20220295684 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bettiol”, in view of Freimann et al. (US 20220369616 A1), hereafter referred to as “Freimann”.
Regarding claim 1, Bettiol teaches an electric weed control system (figs. 1-3) comprising a housing (34; figs. 1-3) having an opening facing toward the ground (figs. 1-3),
an array of flexible electrodes (27, 29; paragraphs [0047], [0051] and fig. 2 disclosing flexible elements 27; fig. 3 showing an array of elements 27 and 29; see also fig. 1) within the housing (figs. 2-3) and which extend toward the opening (best shown in fig. 2),
wherein the flexible electrodes are configured to contact plants extending from the ground (fig. 2; paragraph [0051]) and configured to introduce electrical voltage to the plant (paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the system is configured to couple to a vehicle in contact with a ground (paragraphs [0034] and [0036]), but does not explicitly teach wherein a portion of each electrode of the array of flexible electrodes comprises a segmented portion.
Freimann teaches an electric weed control system (figs. 1-20) including a flexible electrode (70; fig. 9 and paragraphs [0020] and [0070]) with a segmented portion (74, 75; fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bettiol, such that a portion of each electrode of the array of flexible electrodes comprises a segmented portion, as taught by Freimann, in order to further increase flexibility to maintain continuous contact to avoid arcing (paragraph [0020] of Freimann and paragraphs [0016]-[0018] of Bettiol).
Regarding claim 2, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches that the housing (34) extends at least as far as the flexible electrodes (fig. 2) whereby ingress by small animals is inhibited and plants permitted (fig. 2 and paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches that the array of flexible electrodes (27, 29) are coupled to the housing (34) via an insulator adaptor isolator (26; figs. 1-2), optionally1 wherein the insulator adaptor is a block of nonconductive material.
PNG
media_image1.png
257
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated and truncated Figure 1 of Bettiol.
Regarding claim 4, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches that an upper portion of each electrode (see annotated figure 1 above) of the array of flexible electrodes is of higher stiffness than a lower portion (remaining portion below the upper portion; annotated figure 1 shows that the upper portion of element 27 at least has a higher stiffness due to its fastening to element 22).
Regarding claim 5, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the flexible electrodes (27, 29) are coupled to a laterally moveable boom (2, 3, 4, 5; figs. 1-2 showing that elements 2, 3, 4, and 5 are laterally moveable along element 6; see also paragraph [0034]) via a removable fastener (7; fig. 1), optionally wherein the removable fastener is selected from the group consisting of snap-fit, clamp, bolt, screw, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the array of flexible electrodes (27, 29) comprises between about 2 and 8 rows of flexible electrodes (fig. 3),
optionally the array of flexible electrodes comprise 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 rows of flexible electrodes, optionally the array of flexible electrodes comprise between about 1 and 8 flexible electrodes per row, optionally the array of flexible electrodes comprise about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 flexible electrodes per row.
Regarding claim 7, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the array of flexible electrodes (27, 29) are arranged adjacent to each other (fig. 3) or the array of flexible electrodes are arranged apart (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 7, and Bettiol further teaches that the flexible electrodes in the same row are spaced apart (fig. 3), but does not explicitly teach that they are spaced about the width of one flexible electrode apart.
It is well settled, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In this case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of the spacing of the electrodes being about the width of one flexible electrode apart (see, e.g., instant figure 5 showing multiple rows flexible electrodes with differing spacings). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric weed control system of Bettiol in view of Freimann, such that the flexible electrodes are spaced about the width of one flexible electrode apart, in order to ensure electrical safety between adjacent electrodes.
Regarding claim 9, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the array of flexible electrodes (27, 29) further comprises a non-conductive backing (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and further teaches that the segmented potion (74, 75; fig. 9 as relied on Freimann) of each flexible electrode (27, 29 of Bettiol) comprises a plurality of strips (fig. 9 of Freimann) between about the lower 25% of the length up to about 75% of the total length (fig. 2 of Bettiol), optionally the flexible electrode is segmented into strips on the lower 25% of the length of the flexible electrode, the lower 50% of the length of the flexible electrode, or the lower 75% of the length of the flexible electrode.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 10, and further teaches that the strips (74, 75; fig. 9 as relied on Freimann) can move independently (paragraph [0020] and fig. 9 of Freimann).
Regarding claim 12, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the flexible electrode (27, 29) comprises between 2 and 8 strips (fig. 1 showing 27 and 29 is at least two strips), optionally the flexible electrode comprises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 strips, optionally the strips on the flexible electrode are adjacent, optionally there are spaces between strips of the flexible electrode.
Regarding claim 13, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the flexible electrodes (27, 29), having a forward and a reverse surface (a first surface where reference element 29 locates in fig. 2 and a second surface where reference element 27 locates in fig. 2), are paired with an insulator flap configured behind the reverse surface (27; fig. 1, as best understood).
Regarding claim 14, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 13, and Bettiol further teaches wherein the insulator flap (27) is about the same size and shape as the flexible electrode (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the housing (34 of Bettiol) having an opening toward the ground is segmented (figs. 1-3 of Bettiol), wherein individual segments in the housing, arranged horizontally, move independently (figs. 1-3 of Bettiol, as best understood).
Regarding claim 16, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the housing is equally segmented (figs. 1-3 of Bettiol, as best understood), optionally the housing is equally segmented into 2 or 4 equal-sized segments.
Regarding claim 17, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control system of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches that the electric weed control system is coupled to the vehicle (claim 19 and paragraph [0034]) by a laterally movable boom (2, 3, 4, 5; figs. 1-2 showing that elements 2, 3, 4, and 5 are laterally moveable along element 6; see also paragraph [0034]) extending from the vehicle (paragraph [0034]), optionally wherein the vehicle is a tractor, car, robotic, autonomous, drone, or combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches the electric weed control vehicle of claim 1, and Bettiol further teaches that the vehicle (claim 19 and paragraph [0034]) has a front side, a rear side, a first and second side, the first and second sides extending between the front and rear sides (vehicles are understood to have a front, rear, first, and second sides), and where laterally moveable boom extends from the front side and is moveable laterally with respect to the main vehicle body in the direction of the first side and in the direction of the second side (figs. 1-3), optionally wherein laterally moveable boom is moveable such that at least a portion of the housing is extendible past the first side in a first lateral movement, and at least a portion of the housing extendible pas the second side in a second lateral movement, optionally wherein the laterally moveable boom moves laterally while maintaining a substantially constant distance from the ground upon which the vehicle moves.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As shown in the rejection of independent claim 1 above, Freimann is relied upon to teach a portion of each electrode of the array of flexible electrodes comprises a segmented portion. Thus, Bettiol in view of Freimann teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 It is noted that optional limitations are not required in the claim language.
Prosecution Insights