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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 12/18/2023 (4 total) and 03/07/2024 have been considered (except as noted herein). The NPL document, “PCT/EP2021/067382,” identified in one of the IDSes filed on 12/18/2023 has not been considered as the title appears to have a typographical error (the title on the submitted document is “PCT/EP2022/067382”).
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 13 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 13 recites “wherein the treatment device configurations differ from each other in comprising a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide, or comprising a critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit.” It is unclear how the claim scope should be read. Does the claim require any one of the listed elements or some other combination of elements? Thus claim 13 is rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 14 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 14 is directed to a “use” of a “treatment device” without positively reciting any steps on how the “treatment device” is used. Although claim 14 is dependent on method claim 1, the method in claim 1 is directed to steps that a controller performs. Thus, claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(q).
Claim 16 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 16 is directed to a “use” of a “treatment device” without positively reciting any steps on how the “treatment device” is used. Thus claim 16 is rejected as being indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “Use” without claiming a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and thus fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “Use” without claiming a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and thus fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0182978 to Nick Nissing (“Nissing”) (submitted by Applicant in the IDS of 12/18/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nissing discloses:
A computer-implemented method for controlling operation of multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) having treatment device configurations different to each other for treating an agricultural field (112) (Nissing discloses a computer-implemented method (“computer-implemented method”) of remotely controlling a drone subsystem with “multiple application drones [(“multiple treatment devices”)] [that] may be flown in parallel, with each application drone including the same or different payloads, to cover different zones of a field [(“for treating an agricultural field”)] or to cover one or more fields [(“having treatment device configurations different to each other”)].” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0045] and [0203] and Fig. 1.), the method comprising:
analyzing field data, monitored as at least one of the multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) traverses the field, to identify weed present at a certain field location (113) of the field (112) by weed species (Nissing discloses that the server computing subsystem includes a “scouting and application instructions 720 [that] are programmed for analyzing various data (such as field data [(“analyzing field data”)], imagery, efficacy estimate, biomass/yield, economic impact, subjective aggressiveness, historical data, weed species detection [(“identify weed present at a certain field location (113) of the field (112) by weed species”)], pest species detection, weed size, crop maturity, population density, reapplication options, active ingredient modes of action) and, based on the analysis, generating programmed scouting instructions and prescriptions and corresponding programmed application instructions.” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0141]-[0145] and Fig. 7. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“at least one of the multiple treatment devices”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds [(“identify weed present at a certain field location (113) of the field (112) by weed species”)] and spraying in the same flight, or by identifying nutrient stress and applying the appropriate nutrient in the same flight).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing disclose the claimed “analyzing.”); and
targeted instructing at least one treatment device (102, 103, 104, 107) among the multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) that has a matching treatment device configuration for an identified weed species to treat the field (112) at the corresponding certain field location (113) against the identified weed species (Nissing discloses that the server computing subsystem includes a “scouting and application instructions 720 [that] are programmed for analyzing various data … and, based on the analysis, generating programmed scouting instructions and prescriptions and corresponding programmed application instructions” ("targeted instructing at least one treatment device … that has a matching treatment device configuration for an identified weed species to treat the field (112) at the corresponding certain field location (113) against the identified weed species”). See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0141]-[0145] and Fig. 7. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“multiple treatment devices”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply [(“targeted instructing at least one treatment device”)] a prescribed payload [(“matching treatment device configuration”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds [(“identified weed species to treat the field (112) at the corresponding certain field location (113) against the identified weed species”)] and spraying [(“targeted instructing at least one treatment device”)] in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing disclose the claimed “targeted instructing.”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Nissing discloses:
wherein the identified or identifiable weed species include monocotyledon weed, dicotyledon weed and/or critical weed non-treatable with selective herbicide but treatable with broadband herbicide, associated with and targeted and/or identified via a respective weed identifier (Nissing discloses the use of a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“broadband herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207].).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Nissing discloses:
wherein the targeted instructing comprises matching the respective weed identifier with the treatment device configurations of the multiple treatment devices to determine that treatment device having the matching treatment device configuration (Nissing discloses that “drone equipment [(“treatment device”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Nissing also discloses that a “prescription [(“targeted instructing”)] … describes a product to apply to the field [which] … may include agrichemicals such as crop protection chemistry (e.g., herbicides, ….” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0171]. Thus, Nissing discloses identifying a target, e.g., weed, (“weed identifier”) and the corresponding prescribed payload (“treatment device configurations”) of the drone. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “targeted instructing.”
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Nissing discloses:
wherein the treatment device configurations of the multiple treatment devices are associated with and targeted via a treatment device configuration identifier indicating treatability of a corresponding weed species (Nissing discloses that the server computer subsystem 704 generates prescriptions that can include an herbicide for weed control (“treatment device configuration identifier indicating treatability of a corresponding weed species”). See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0164]-[0166]. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“multiple treatment devices”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload [(“treatment device configurations”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “treatment device configuration identifier.”).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, Nissing discloses:
wherein the targeted matching comprises matching the treatment device configuration identifier with the identified weed species to determine that treatment device having the matching treatment device configuration (Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“treatment device having the matching treatment device configuration”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload [(“matching the treatment device configuration identifier with the identified weed species”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 7, Nissing discloses:
A method for weed treatment in an agricultural field (As discussed in claim 1, Nissing discloses the claimed “method.” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0045] and [0203] and Fig. 1.), the method comprising:
providing a monocotyledon, dicotyledon or critical weed herbicide as at least a part of a treatment device configuration for use in the method according to claim 1 (Nissing discloses the use of a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“critical weed herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207].).
Regarding claim 8, Nissing discloses:
A system for treating an agricultural field (112) (Nissing discloses a “drone-based multi-pass agronomic system 700 ....” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0126]-[0145] and Fig. 7.), comprising:
a plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) having treatment device configurations different to each other; and a controller (100) configured to: analyze field data, monitored as at least one of the plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) traverses the field, to identify weed present at a certain field location (113) of the field (112) by weed species; and targeted instruct at least one of the plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) having a treatment device configuration that matches an identified weed species to treat the field (112) at the corresponding certain field location (113) against the identified weed species (Nissing discloses a server computing subsystem 704 (“controller”) that performs the claimed functions. See analysis in claim1 and Nissing at pars. [0045], [0126]-[0145], [0203] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
wherein a treatment device configuration of a respective treatment device of the plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) is associated with the treatment of monocotyledon weed, dicotyledon weed and/or critical weed non-treatable with selective herbicide but treatable with broadband herbicide, associated with and targeted via a respective weed identifier (Nissing discloses the use of a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“broadband herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207]. ]. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“treatment device”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload [(“treatment device configuration”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “treatment device configuration.”).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
wherein the treatment device configurations of the multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) are associated with and targeted via a treatment device configuration identifier indicating treatability of a corresponding weed species (Nissing discloses that the server computer subsystem 704 generates prescriptions that can include an herbicide for weed control (“treatment device configuration identifier indicating treatability of a corresponding weed species”). See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0164]-[0166]. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“multiple treatment devices”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload [(“treatment device configurations”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “treatment device configuration identifier.”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
wherein the controller (100) is at least partly arranged in a server or cloud environment (C) and/or a ground station (110) separated to the plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) (Nissing discloses that server computing system 704 can be cloud based or located at a management location of the field. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0136] and Fig. 7.).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
wherein the controller (100) is at least partly arranged on-board with one or more of the plurality of treatment devices (Nissing discloses that “[i]n an embodiment, the data retrieval instructions 718 [of the server computing system 704 (“controller”)] are programmed for retrieving raw and processed data from one or more of the subsystems 706, 708, 712, 714 and the ground station 710” (“at least partly arranged on-board with one or more of the plurality of treatment devices”). See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0140].).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
wherein the treatment device configurations differ from each other in comprising a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide, or comprising a critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit (Nissing discloses that the prescribed payloads (“treatment device configurations”) can be different. See Nissing at pars. [0141]-[0145] and [0203].)
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Nissing discloses:
The use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 107) comprising a monocotyledon herbicide, a dicotyledon herbicide, critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit in a method according to claim 1 (Nissing in view of Bayer discloses the use of drones (“treatment device”) in a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“critical weed herbicide”). See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207] Nissing also discloses a “drone-based multi-pass agronomic system 700 ....” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0126]-[0145] and Fig. 7; see also analysis in claim 1. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “use.”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Nissing discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon which, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Nissing discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0250].).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 8, Nissing discloses:
The use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 107) comprising a monocotyledon herbicide, a dicotyledon herbicide, critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit in a system according to claim 8 (Nissing discloses the use of drones (“treatment device”) in a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“critical weed herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207]. Nissing also discloses a “drone-based multi-pass agronomic system 700 ....” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0126]-[0145] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed use.).
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.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissing in view of European Patent Application publication No. EP3279831 to Bayer CorpScience AG (“Bayer”) (submitted by Applicant in an IDS of 12/18/2023).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
wherein the identified or identifiable weed species include monocotyledon weed, dicotyledon weed and/or critical weed non-treatable with selective herbicide but treatable with broadband herbicide, associated with and targeted and/or identified via a respective weed identifier (Nissing discloses the use of a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“broadband herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207]. While Nissing discloses identifying and treating critical weeds with a broadband herbicide, Nissing does not explicitly disclose identifying monocotyledon weed or a dicotyledon weed. However, in the same field of endeavor, identification and control of weeds (and thus analogous art), Bayer discloses “determining [ ]whether the weed is a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon.” See, e.g., Bayer at par. [0056]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to configure the system in Nissing to identify specific weeds such as monocotyledon weeds and/or a dicotyledon weeds (“the identified or identifiable weed species include monocotyledon weed, dicotyledon weed”)]. This is because doing so would allow a farmer to “decide instantly which type of herbicide to use in order to fight the developing weed among his crop [and] … to apply the herbicide only onto those areas where the weed has grown,” which will save resources and protect the environment. See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0003] and [0016]. See MPEP §2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 6, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
A method for weed treatment in an agricultural field (112), carried out by multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) having treatment device configurations different to each other for treating the agricultural field (112) (As discussed in claim 1, Nissing discloses the claimed “method.” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0045] and [0203] and Fig. 1.), the method comprising:
providing a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide for a first treatment device of the multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) or a critical weed herbicide for a second treatment device of the multiple treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) (Nissing discloses identifying a weed species and applying (“providing”) an herbicide. See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0144] and [0171]. Nissing also discloses an herbicide treatment plan that uses multiple passes in which an initial pass is a “broad spectrum” herbicide (“critical weed herbicide for a second treatment device”) and “an additional pass can be targeted to specific resistant weeds” (“herbicide for a first treatment device”). However, Nissing does not explicitly disclose applying a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide. In the same field of endeavor, identification and control of weeds (and thus analogous art), Bayer discloses “determining [] whether the weed is a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon” and to “decide instantly which type of herbicide to use in order to fight the developing weed among his crop.” See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0016] and [0056]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to configure the system in Nissing to identify specific weeds such as monocotyledon weeds and/or a dicotyledon weeds and to apply the proper herbicide for a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon (“providing a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide for a first treatment device”). This is because “choosing the right herbicides in the correct amount, is instrumental to saving resources and further protect the environment.” See, e.g., Bayer at par. [0003]. See MPEP §2143.I.G. Accordingly, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious the claimed “providing.”); and
operating the first treatment device and/or the second treatment device provided with the respective herbicide according to the method of claim 1 (For the reasons given above in claim 1, Nissing discloses the claimed “operating.”).
Regarding claim 7, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
A method for weed treatment in an agricultural field (As discussed in claim 1, Nissing discloses the claimed “method.” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0045] and [0203] and Fig. 1.), the method comprising:
providing a monocotyledon, dicotyledon or critical weed herbicide as at least a part of a treatment device configuration for use in the method according to claim 1 (Nissing discloses an herbicide treatment plan that uses multiple passes in which an initial pass is a “broad spectrum” herbicide (“providing … critical weed herbicide”). However, Nissing does not explicitly disclose applying a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide. In the same field of endeavor, identification and control of weeds (and thus analogous art), Bayer discloses “determining [] whether the weed is a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon” and to “decide instantly which type of herbicide to use in order to fight the developing weed among his crop.” See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0016] and [0056]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to configure the system in Nissing to identify specific weeds such as monocotyledon weeds and/or a dicotyledon weeds and to apply the proper herbicide for a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon (“providing a monocotyledon, dicotyledon … herbicide”). This is because “choosing the right herbicides in the correct amount, is instrumental to saving resources and further protect the environment.” See, e.g., Bayer at par. [0003]. See MPEP §2143.I.G. Thus, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious the claimed “providing.”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
wherein a treatment device configuration of a respective treatment device of the plurality of treatment devices (102, 103, 104, 107) is associated with the treatment of monocotyledon weed, dicotyledon weed and/or critical weed non-treatable with selective herbicide but treatable with broadband herbicide, associated with and targeted via a respective weed identifier (Nissing discloses the use of a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“broadband herbicide”) to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207]. Nissing also discloses that “drone equipment [(“treatment device”)] with both scouting capabilities and application capabilities may be used to identify a target and apply a prescribed payload [(“treatment device configuration”)] in the same flight (for example, by identifying weeds and spraying in the same flight…).” See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0144] and Fig. 7. While Nissing discloses identifying and treating critical weeds with a broadband herbicide, Nissing does not explicitly disclose identifying monocotyledon weed or a dicotyledon weed. However, in the same field of endeavor, identification and control of weeds (and thus analogous art), Bayer discloses “determining [ ]whether the weed is a monocotyledon or a dicotyledon” and applying the appropriate herbicide. See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0016] and [0056]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to configure the system in Nissing to identify specific weeds such as monocotyledon weeds and/or a dicotyledon weeds. This is because doing so would allow a farmer to “decide instantly which type of herbicide to use in order to fight the developing weed among his crop [and] … to apply the herbicide only onto those areas where the weed has grown,” which will save resources and protect the environment. See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0003] and [0016]. See MPEP §2143.I.G. Thus, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious the claimed “treatment device configuration.”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 8, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
wherein the treatment device configurations differ from each other in comprising a monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide, or comprising a critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit (Nissing discloses that the prescribed payloads (“treatment device configurations”) can be different. See Nissing at pars. [0141]-[0145] and [0203]. Bayer discloses use of monocotyledon herbicide or a dicotyledon herbicide. See, e.g., Bayer at pars. [0003], [0016], and [0056]; see also analysis in claim 6 for motivation to combine Nissing and Bayer.).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
The use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 107) comprising a monocotyledon herbicide, a dicotyledon herbicide, critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit in a method according to claim 1 (For the reasons given above with respect to claim 6, Nissing in view of Bayer discloses the use of drones (“treatment device”) in a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“critical weed herbicide”), monocotyledon herbicide, or a dicotyledon herbicide to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207] and Bayer at pars. [0003], [0016], and [0056]; see also analysis in claim 6 for motivation to combine Nissing and Bayer; see also analysis in claim 1. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “use.”).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 8, Nissing in view of Bayer renders obvious:
The use of a treatment device (102, 103, 104, 107) comprising a monocotyledon herbicide, a dicotyledon herbicide, critical weed herbicide, a mechanical treatment unit or an electrical treatment unit in a system according to claim 8 (For the reasons given above with respect to claim 6, Nissing in view of Bayer discloses the use of drones (“treatment device”) in a multi-pass herbicide spraying strategy using broad spectrum weed control agent (“critical weed herbicide”), monocotyledon herbicide, or a dicotyledon herbicide to control weeds. See, e.g., Nissing at par. [0207] and Bayer at pars. [0003], [0016], and [0056]; see also analysis in claim 6 for motivation to combine Nissing and Bayer. Nissing also discloses a “drone-based multi-pass agronomic system 700 ....” See, e.g., Nissing at pars. [0126]-[0145] and Fig. 7. Thus, Nissing discloses the claimed “use.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116