DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recites the limitation “the configurable spray boom is configured transition between first and second configurations”. There is not support in the original disclosure for this limitation in conjunction with the limitation “when the configurable spray boom is in the first configuration, a respective camera is mounted on the first support of each camera frame such that the respective camera is oriented in a first direction to capture images in the first direction ,and when the configurable spray boom is in the second configuration, the respective camera is mounted on the second support of each camera frame such that the respective camera is oriented in a second direction to capture images in the second direction”, rendering the limitations new matter. The disclosure as originally filed discloses two configurations where the camera is mounted on the first support in the first configuration and on the second support in the second configuration (see original claims or paragraph [0005]). The disclosure also recites transitioning the spray boom between first and second configurations by rotating the boom 180 degrees (see paragraphs [0047] and [0086]). Rotating the boom would not change the mounting of the camera from the first to second support as now claimed. There is not support for moving the cameras from one position on the boom to the other to transition between configurations, rendering the limitations in the claims new matter.
The rejection also applies to the mounting of the illumination sources in claim 11, where in the first configuration the illumination sources are mounted on the second portion and in the second configuration the illumination sources are mounted on the first portion. It is not originally disclosed that the illumination sources are moved from one position to another when transitioning between configurations, rendering the limitation new matter.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are also rejected based upon their dependency upon independent claims 1 and 13.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite both an apparatus, a spray boom, and a method for converting the apparatus between two different modes, “the configurable spray boom is configured transition between first and second configurations, when the configurable spray boom is in the first configuration, a respective camera is mounted on the first support of each camera frame such that the respective camera is oriented in a first direction to capture images in the first direction, and when the configurable spray boom is in the second configuration, the respective camera is mounted on the second support of each camera frame such that the respective camera is oriented in a second direction to capture images in the second direction”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus are indefinite, See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the instant case, the claims are drawn to an apparatus and a method for transitioning between configurations of the apparatus that involve physically moving parts of the apparatus from one location to another. It is unclear whether a spray boom with either the first configuration or second configuration would infringe upon the claimed inventions, or whether it would be required for the spray boom to be converted from one configuration to the other in order to infringe upon the claimed invention, making the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 13 above, where claim 11 recites both an apparatus, a spray boom, and a method of changing between two configurations with illumination sources mounted in two different positions, making it unclear whether an apparatus with illumination sources in one of the configurations would infringe upon the claims, or whether the illumination sources are moved in a method step of changing configurations, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claims 1 and 13.
Related Art
Hiddema WO 2013092272 A1 has been cited for teaching the structure of a spray boom including parallel upper and lower supports with first and second supports extending between them.
Kwak 2022/0132829 has been cited for teaching boom sprayers with overlapping cameras pointed at an angle along each side of the system.
Serrat CA 3050364 A1 has been cited for teaching a boom sprayer with cameras mounted on supports that extend above the lower support of the boom sprayer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but 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.
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 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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752