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 1-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of EP22216381.8 filed 12/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2023 and 12/15/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sow seeds" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKean et al. (USPGPub 2017/0238460) in view of Bassett (USPGPub 2019/0216018). As per claim 1, MacKean discloses a weed control system, comprising: an autonomous work device (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein autonomous ground robot 10), including: driving means configured to move the autonomous work device in an environment (see at least paragraph 0043; wherein drive subsystem of robot 10, FIGS. 2-5 may include four driven wheels 32a-32d and four corresponding wheel drive gearboxes 34a-34d) and a control circuit configured to control the driving means to navigate the autonomous work device in the environment (see at least paragraph 0050; wherein controller subsystem 70 controlling drive motors 34). MacKean does not explicitly mention at least one releasable shading plate arranged attached to a release mechanism of the autonomous work device, wherein the control circuit is configured to obtain information on a location of an identified target plant, and to control the release mechanism to release the releasable shading plate onto the location of the identified target plant. However Bassett does disclose: at least one releasable shading plate arranged attached to a release mechanism of the autonomous work device (see at least paragraph 0056; wherein an agricultural system 400 has a plurality of organic devices 402 with respective weed-control units 404 and shafts 406. The shafts 406 are adjustable, having an H range of positions, in accordance with a weed height present in the field), wherein the control circuit is configured to obtain information on a location of an identified target plant, and to control the release mechanism to release the releasable shading plate onto the location of the identified target plant (see at least paragraph 0060; wherein the spring-loaded element 708 allows automatic adjustment of the weed-control unit 704 when passing over uneven terrain or weeds). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Bassett with the teachings as in MacKean. The motivation for doing so would have been to clear a reduced or weed-free path 130 between the rows, see Bassett paragraph 0052. As per claim 2, MacKean discloses the weed control system further comprising: sensor means configured to sense the environment and to generate a sensor signal based on the sensed environment of the autonomous work device, wherein the control circuit is further configured to detect a plant in the environment based on the sensor signal, to determine whether the detected plant is the identified target plant, to compute the location of the identified target plant (see at least paragraph 0006; wherein A weed sensor subsystem on the chassis is at a first elevation from the ground. A crop/obstacle sensor subsystem on the chassis is at a second, higher elevation from the ground. A controller subsystem is responsive to the weed sensor subsystem and the crop/obstacle sensor subsystem and is configured to: control the drive subsystem to maneuver the chassis about a garden, upon detection of a weed, energize the motorized cutting subsystem to cut the weed and upon detection of a crop or obstacle, control the drive subsystem to maneuver the chassis away from the obstacle). As per claim 19, MacKean discloses wherein the autonomous work device is an autonomous lawn mower (see at least abstract; wherein autonomous garden weeding robot).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKean et al. (USPGPub 2017/0238460), in view of Bassett (USPGPub 2019/0216018), and further in view of Roos et al. (USPGPub 2024/0373782). As per claim 3, MacKean and Bassett do not explicitly mention wherein the sensor means comprises a camera sensor, and the control circuit is configured detect the plant by performing image processing of the sensor signal, and determine the identified target plant using a classification algorithm or a deep neural network. However Roos does disclose: wherein the sensor means comprises a camera sensor, and the control circuit is configured detect the plant by performing image processing of the sensor signal, and determine the identified target plant using a classification algorithm or a deep neural network (see at least paragraph 0082; wherein image classification based on deep learning algorithms. The images could be provided by a camera being housed as part of the sensors, by surveillance cameras for the work area and/or based on satellite images of the area). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Roos with the teachings as in MacKean and Bassett. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an improved scheduling for a robotic lawnmower, see Roos paragraph 0001.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKean et al. (USPGPub 2017/0238460), in view of Bassett (USPGPub 2019/0216018), and further in view of Pattnaik et al. (USPGPub 2018/0232578). As per claim 4, MacKean and Bassett do not explicitly mention wherein the weed control system comprises a user input terminal communicatively coupled to the autonomous work device, and the user input terminal is configured to transmit at least information on the location of the identified target plant. However Pattnaik does disclose: wherein the weed control system comprises a user input terminal communicatively coupled to the autonomous work device, and the user input terminal is configured to transmit at least information on the location of the identified target plant (see at least paragraph 0025; wherein the plant requirements considered by location optimization module 108 may be configurable based on input provided via a user interface generated by application 118 on user computing device 112). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Pattnaik with the teachings as in MacKean and Bassett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve access to electronic data, see Pattnaik paragraph 0044.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKean et al. (USPGPub 2017/0238460), in view of Bassett (USPGPub 2019/0216018), and further in view of Design Choice. As per claim 7, MacKean and Bassett discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the releasable shading plate is made of metallic material and is covered with a corrosion-protective coating. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the material and coating of an object, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the design. A change in design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skilled in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacKean et al. (USPGPub 2017/0238460), in view of Bassett (USPGPub 2019/0216018), and further in view of Oh (USPGPub 2021/0251132)). As per claim 18, MacKean and Bassett do not explicitly mention wherein the sow seeds are grass seeds. However Oh does disclose: wherein the sow seeds are grass seeds (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein sow grass seeds). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Oh with the teachings as in MacKean and Bassett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve durability, see Oh paragraph 0136.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the control circuit is configured to perform a mapping function, and to record at least one of the location of the identified target plant and a location of the releasable shading plate in a map.
Claim(s) 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the release mechanism comprises at least one electromagnet, and the releasable shading plate includes a metallic element, and the control circuit is configured to control releasing the releasable shading plate by controlling the at least one electromagnet.
Claim(s) 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the releasable shading plate is made of decomposable material and contains grass seeds and/or fertilizer.
Claim(s) 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the releasable shading plate comprises at least one ground spike, and the control circuit is configured to control the driving means to move the autonomous device onto the releasable shading plate.
Claim(s) 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the release mechanism comprises at least one suction cap, and the control circuit is configured to control releasing the releasable shading plate by controlling the at least one suction cap.
Claim(s) 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the releasable shading plate comprises at least one ground spike, and the control circuit is configured to navigate the autonomous working device to drive onto the releasable shading plate after release. Claim 14 is also object to by virtue of their dependency.
Claim(s) 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the releasable shading plate comprises at least one of a RFID tag, a QR code and a color coding encoding an unambiguous identity code of the releasable shading plate.
Claim(s) 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the weed control system is configured to release the releasable shading plate at a storage location (8).
Claim(s) 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the weed control system is configured to recollect the releasable shading plate after a predetermined time has elapsed since releasing the releasable shading plate.
Claim(s) 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the weed control system comprises a user interface configured to inform a user when to recollect the releasable shading plate.
Claim(s) 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the weed control system comprises a sowing means, and the control circuit is configured to control the sowing means to sow seeds, at the location of the identified target plant after recollecting the releasable shading plate or after the releasable shading plate has decomposed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662