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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Swiss on 12/02/2021 and an application filed in Swiss on 03/24/2022. It is noted, however, those applicants have NOT filed certified copies of the application CH070685/2021 and the application CH000321/2022 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 262 in para. [0073].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 550 in Fig. 7 and 610 in Fig. 8A.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, i) the processing unit configured to: a) perform object recognition …; b) generate a mapping …; c) continuously track … as claimed in claim 1 (note: said objection is related to the 112 rejection for claim 1, see below); and ii) the distance measurement sensor in claims 3-6 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, term “a height of the second supporting structures” is believed to be in error for - - a height of the second supporting [[structures]]structure - -
Regarding claim 8, term “the first supporting” is believed to be in error for - - the first supporting structure - -
Regarding claim 11, recitation “… a. performing a low-resolution spot spraying and a high-resolution spot spraying simultaneously” is believed to be in error for - - a. performing [[a]]the low-resolution spot spraying and [[a]]the high-resolution spot spraying simultaneously - -
Regarding claim 14, recitation “… set the first distance when a low-resolution spot spraying is used, thereby increasing the time for computation and consequently to allow speed increase of the system, set the second distance when a high-resolution spot spraying is used, wherein the speed of the system is limited to allow high-precision mapping of one or more plants in a ground reference” is believed to be in error for - - set the first distance when [[a]]the low-resolution spot spraying is used, thereby increasing the time for computation and consequently to allow speed increase of the system, set the second distance when [[a]]the high-resolution spot spraying is used, wherein the speed of the system is limited to allow high-precision mapping of one or more plants of the objects with reference to the ground
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, the specification lacks written description for the recitation “a processing unit configured to: a) perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image; b) generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system of the system, c) continuously track a position of the objects on the mapping” as claimed in claim 1 because:
i) according to Fig. 3 and [0011, 0056 and 0063], the specification discloses the processing unit 274 in Fig. 3 configured to identify one or more objects on the acquired images and to generate a depth map of these objects on the 3D coordinate system, and transmit the coordinates of the objects to the object tracking unit 276 in Fig. 3 to track the relative displacement until the objects reach the nozzles, i.e., the disclosed processing unit performs only two functions a) and b) claimed in claim 1, and the third claimed function c) in claim 1 is performed by the object tracking unit as disclosed;
ii) therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient written description to support a processing unit configured to perform all of the three functions a), b) and c) as claimed in claim 1, and thus, claim 1 and its dependents are rejected as lacking written description.
Regarding claim 2, the specification lacks written description for recitation “wherein the height control system comprises one or more primary height actuators arranged to control the height of both the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure with reference to the ground and one or more secondary height actuators arranged to move the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure relative to one another” as claimed in claim 2 because:
i) according to Figs. 1-2 and [0052-0053], the specification discloses a first one or more height actuator 232 in Fig. 1 is arranged to control the height of the first supporting structure 210 in Figs. 1-2, and a second one or more height actuator 252 in Fig. 2 is arranged to control independently the height of the first supporting structure 210 and the height of the second supporting structure 215 in Fig. 2, and a relative vertical distance between the first supporting structure 210 and the second structure 215 is also controlled by the height actuator 252, i.e., the one or more disclosed first height actuator only controls the height of the first supporting structure, and the one or more disclosed second height actuator independently controls both of the height of the first supporting structure and the height of the second supporting structure, and a relative vertical distance between the first and second supporting structures;
ii) moreover, claim 2 requires the height control system comprising one or more primary height actuator to control the height of both of the first and second supporting structure with reference to the ground, which is consistent to the one or more disclosed second height actuators, and a secondary height actuator to move the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure relative to one another, which is also consistent to the one or more disclosed second height actuator, and claim 2 requires the one or more claimed primary height actuator and the one or more claimed secondary height actuator are two/two sets of different and separated height actuators, which is conflicting with the specification;
iii) therefore, claim 2 is rejected as lacking written description.
Regarding claim 5, the specification lacks written description for the recitation “wherein a distance information measured by the distance measurement sensor is transmitted to the control unit to regulate the height of the first supporting structure and the height to the second supporting structure relative to the ground surface as a function of the distance information” as claimed in claim 5 because:
i) according to Figs. 1-3 and [0052, 0059, 0061, and 0063], the specification discloses a) a height control system 230 configured to control the height of the first supporting structure 210 according to the distance information received from the distance sensor/the camera module on the first supporting structure 210, b) a height control system 250 configured to control the height of the second supporting structure 215 according to the distance information received from the distance sensor/the camera module on the second supporting structure 215, c) a first nozzle array control unit 280 configured to control the first array of nozzles 220 to perform a low-resolution spot spraying, and d) a second nozzle array control unit 282 configured to control the second array of nozzles 240 to perform a high-resolution spot spraying;
ii) moreover, claim 1, which claim 5 depends, defines a) a height control system configured to control independently a height of the first supporting structure and a height of the second supporting structure, and b) a control unit configured to control the first array of nozzles and the second array of nozzles to perform a low-resolution spot spraying and a high-resolution spot spraying respectively on different objects, i.e., in light of the specification, the control unit as claimed in claim 1 is a nozzle array control unit for controlling nozzle spraying that is separated from the height control system for controlling the height of the supporting structure(s) as claimed in claim 1;
iii) however, claim 5 requires the control unit configured to regulate the height of the first supporting structure and the height to the second supporting structure according to the distance information received from the distance measurement sensor, i.e., the control unit as claimed in claim 5 is for controlling the height of the supporting structures, which is conflicting with the control unit as claimed in claim 1, and thus, claim 5 is rejected as lacking written description;
iv) furthermore, claim 3 only requires a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure to the ground surface or a distance from the second supporting structure to the ground surface, and as explained in i) above the specification discloses the height of the first supporting structure is regulated according to the distance information of the first supporting structure relative to the ground, and the height of the second supporting structure is regulated according to the distance information of the second supporting structure relative to the ground, and thus, the specification does not support a) both of the height of the first supporting structure and the height of the second are regulated according to the distance information measured from the first supporting structure, and b) both of the height of the first supporting structure and the height of the second are regulated according to the distance information measured from the second supporting structure.
Regarding claim 12, the specification lacks written description for the recitation “wherein the mapping of the objects on the coordinate system of the system is based at least in part on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor, and wherein the mapping is used for correction of a horizontal mapping error caused by a height difference between an estimated object plane and a real object position” because:
i) according to Fig. 3 and [0056-0057], the specification discloses the processing unit 274 receives the acquired image from the camera and configured to identify the objects in the acquired image and to generate a depth map of the objects, i.e., pixel coordination, and according to Figs. 4-5B and [0064 and 0066-0067], the specification discloses the 3D depth sensor 314 measures a distance between any point of the objects on the acquired image from the camera and the processing unit 274 receives the measured distance and generates a 3D map that is used to correct a horizontal mapping error 322 in Fig. 5A caused by a height difference between estimated object plane and the real object position when only using the acquired image from the camera, i.e., a first mapping is generated based on the acquired image from the camera, a second mapping is generated based on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor, and the second mapping is used to correct the error of the first mapping to form a third mapping;
ii) moreover, in claim 1, which claim 12 depends, defines a processing unit configured to perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image and generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system, i.e., the mapping as claimed in claim 1 may be interpreted as the disclosed first mapping generated based on the acquired image from the camera or the disclosed third mapping that is a result after the first mapping being corrected according to the second mapping;
iii) the recitation “wherein the mapping of the objects on the coordinate system of the system is based at least in part on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor” of claim 12 further define the mapping as claimed in claim 1 to be the disclosed third mapping that is a result after the first mapping being corrected according to the second mapping, which is consistent with the disclosure;
iv) however, the recitation “wherein the mapping is used for correction of a horizontal mapping error caused by a height difference between an estimated object plane and a real object position” of claim 12 requires the mapping is the disclosed second mapping generated based on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor and used to correct the disclosed first mapping generated by the acquired images from the camera, which is conflicting with the disclosure, claim 1, and the recitation “wherein the mapping of the objects on the coordinate system of the system is based at least in part on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor” of claim 12, and thus, claim 12 is rejected as lacking written description.
Regarding claim 14, recitation “wherein the first distance or the second distance is a distance between an edge of the acquired image of an area of the cultivated field and a projection on the ground of the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure” contains limitations that the specification lacks written description to support because:
i) according to Figs. 8A-8B and [0078-0079], the first distance 642 in Fig. 8A is a distance between an edge of the acquired image 640 in Fig. 8A and a projection of the low-resolution spraying (from nozzles 220 in Fig. 8A), and the second distance 632 in Fig. 8B is a distance between an edge of the acquired image 630 in Fig. 8B and a projection of the high-resolution spraying (from nozzles 240 in Fig. 8A);
ii) however, said recitation of claim 14 contains limitation a) the first distance is a distance between an edge of the acquired image of an area of the cultivated field and a projection on the ground of the second supporting structure, and b) the second distance is a distance between an edge of the acquired image of an area of the cultivated field and a projection on the ground of the first supporting structure, which are NOT supported by the specification, and thus, claim 14 is rejected as lacking written description.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents,
I. recitation “a height control system comprising at least a height actuator to control independently a height of the first supporting structure and a height of the second supporting structures with reference to a ground” is unclear whether i) a respective height actuator to control a height of a respective one of the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure; or ii) a common height actuator to control a height of the first supporting structure and a height of the second supporting structure;
II. in light of the specification, recitation “a processing unit configured to: a) perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image; b) generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system of the system, c) continuously track a position of the objects on the mapping” is indefinite because:
i) as explained in the 112a rejection for claim 1 and its dependents above, the disclosed processing unit performs only two claimed functions a) and b) in claim 1, and the claimed function c) in claim 1 is performed by the disclosed object tracking unit;
ii) thus, it is unclear whether the claimed processing unit in claim 1 refers to a) the disclosed processing unit (raises 112a issue, see rejection above); or b) a processer comprising the disclosed processing unit and the disclosed object tracking unit.
Regarding claim 2, in light of the specification, recitation “wherein the height control system comprises one or more primary height actuators arranged to control the height of both the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure with reference to the ground and one or more secondary height actuators arranged to move the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure relative to one another” is indefinite because:
i) it is unclear whether term “one or more primary height actuators” refers to a) the previously claimed height control system in claim 1; b) the previously claimed at least one height actuator in claim 1; c) a part of the previously claimed height control system in claim 1; or d) a different height actuator;
ii) it is unclear whether term “one or more secondary height actuators” refers to a) the previously claimed height control system in claim 1; b) the previously claimed at least one height actuator in claim 1; c) a part of the previously claimed height control system in claim 1; or d) a different height actuator; and
iii) as explained in i-ii) in the 112a rejection of claim 2 above, even in light of the specification, it is unclear term “one or more primary height actuators” as claimed refers to which disclosed height actuator, e.g., the first actuator 232 in Fig. 1 or the second actuator 252 in Fig. 2; and it is also unclear term “one or more secondary height actuators” as claimed refers to which disclosed height actuator, e.g., the first actuator 232 in Fig. 1 or the second actuator 252 in Fig. 2, and thus, the claim language of claim 2 is confusing and impossible for interpretation.
Regarding claim 5, in light of the specification, recitation “wherein a distance information measured by the distance measurement sensor is transmitted to the control unit to regulate the height of the first supporting structure and the height to the second supporting structure relative to the ground surface as a function of the distance information” is indefinite because:
i) as explained in i-ii) of the 112a rejection for claim 5 above, the control unit as claimed in claim 5 is for controlling the height of the supporting structures, which is conflicting with the control unit as claimed in claim 1, and thus, it is unclear whether term “control unit” in claim 5 refers to a) the control unit previously claimed in claim 1 (raises 112a issue, see rejection above); or b) the height control system previously claimed in claim 1;
ii) as explained in i) and iv) of the 112a rejection for claim 5 above, claim 3, which claim 5 depends, only requires a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure to the ground surface or a distance from the second supporting structure to the ground surface, and thus, it is unclear term “the distance measurement sensor” in claim 5 refers a) only the distance information measured from the first supporting structure; b) only the distance information measured from the second supporting structure; or c) both of the distance information measured from the first supporting structure and the distance information measured from the second supporting structure.
Regarding claim 7, recitation “wherein the height control system comprises an actuator per segment to independently control a distance of each segment to the ground” is indefinite because it is unclear whether term “an actuator” means i) the previously claimed at least one height actuator in claim 1 is a plurality of actuators, and each of the plurality of actuators controls a respective segment of the plurality of segments (which requires each of the plurality of actuators has the same structure/component as requires in claim 1); or ii) the actuators in claim 7 are different from the previously claimed at least one height actuator in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, recitation “ wherein each of the one or more
supporting structure extensions comprises a low-resolution nozzle array and a distance measurement sensor” is unclear whether term “a low-resolution nozzle array” refers to a) nozzle array for low-resolution spraying in addition to the previously claimed first array of nozzles in claim 1; or b) a portion of the nozzles of the previously claimed first array of nozzles in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10 and its dependent, recitation “… such that the spraying equipment sprays the first and the second chemical mixtures in a single passage” is indefinite because: i) a plurality of directions are previously claimed in claim 1, e.g., the travel direction, the support structure extending direction perpendicular to the travel direction, and a vertical direction relative to the height of the supporting structure(s), and ii) thus, it is unclear “a single passage” refers to a passage relative to which direction previously claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, recitation “wherein the control unit is operated to control each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles and the second arrays of nozzles to perform on the cultivated field any of the following operations” is unclear whether term “each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles and the second arrays of nozzles” refers to i) each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles and each nozzle of the second arrays of the nozzles; or ii) each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles and the whole second arrays of nozzles.
Regarding claim 12, in light of the specification, recitation “…, and wherein the mapping is used for correction of a horizontal mapping error caused by a height difference between an estimated object plane and a real object position” is indefinite because: as explained in i-iv) of the 112a rejection for claim 12 above, said recitation of claim 12 is conflicting with the disclosure, claim 1 and the previously claimed limitation of claim 12, and thus, it is unclear whether “the mapping” refers to i) the previously claim mapping in claim 1 (raises 112a issue, see rejection above); or ii) a mapping generated based on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor that is different from the mapping previously claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, recitation “wherein the processing unit is configured to further i) merge the acquired image of the objects and a depth map of the objects to obtain a 3D image, ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object” is unclear whether term “a 3D image” refers to i) the mapping previously claimed in claim 1; or ii) a different mapping used for tracking the object.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, as explained in i-ii) of the 112a rejection for claim 5 above, the control unit as claimed in claim 5 is for controlling the height of the supporting structures, which is conflicting with the control unit previously claimed in claim 1, and thus, claim 5 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, as exclaimed in i-iv) of the 112a rejection for claim 12 above, the mapping used for correction as claimed in claim 12 is conflicting with the mapping previously claimed in claim 1, and thus, claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner Note
For claim 1, in light of the specification, the limitation “… wherein the second supporting structure comprises a second array of nozzles separated from each other by a second distance smaller than the first distance such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles; … perform a low-resolution spot spraying and a high-resolution spot spraying respectively on different objects …” is interpreted as
- - the number of nozzles of the second array of nozzles along the second supporting structure is larger than the number of nozzles of the first array of nozzles along the first supporting structure, such that the spray area/size of each of a plurality of spot sprays sprayed by each of the second array of nozzles is smaller than the spray area/size of each of a plurality of spot sprays sprayed by each of the first array of nozzles, such that the first array of nozzles perform a low-resolution spot spraying and the second array of nozzles perform a high-resolution spraying (see para. [0004, 0048-0050] and Fig. 2 of the specification).
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown 20200107537.
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Fig. 1A) for spraying an area (122 in Fig. 1A) of a cultivated field ([0205]) comprising a spraying equipment (treatment system 120 in Fig. 1A comprising a plurality of manifolds 220s in Fig. 2A, and per [0108], each of the plurality of manifolds 220s in Fig. 2A is the manifold 260B as shown in Figs. 2E and 2F), the spraying equipment comprising:
a first supporting structure (a first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) and a second supporting structure (a second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A), wherein the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) and the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating (because the manifold paths 240 of the first and second manifolds 220a and 220b are parallel to the travel direction and perpendicular to the manifolds 220a and 220b, see Figs. 2A-2B and [0096]), wherein the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) comprises a first array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A) separated from each other by a first distance (a wide distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]), wherein the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) comprises a second array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see annotated Fig. 2A) separated from each other by a second distance (a narrow distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]) smaller than the first distance (the wide distance, see Fig. 2A and [0096]) such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles (the size of the spot spray sprayed by the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b is smaller than the size of the spot spray sprayed by the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]);
a height control system comprising at least a height actuator to control independently a height of the first supporting structure and a height of the second supporting structures with reference to a ground (interpreted as two independent height actuators, which are a first height actuator, i.e., a first 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A, controls a height of the first supporting structure with reference to a ground, i.e., a height of the 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A, and a second height actuator, i.e., a second 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A, controls a height of the second supporting structure with reference to the ground, i.e., a height of the 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A, see demonstration in annotated Figs. 2G and 2H and [0111]);
a camera system (110 in Fig. 1A comprising cameras 112, see [0197] and Fig. 17) configured to acquire an image of objects (the image of corps per [0198], which is object 102s in Fig. 1A), wherein the objects comprise at least a portion of a plant ([0198]) ahead of the first supporting structure (the first 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A) or the second supporting structure (the second 270 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A) in the travel direction of the system (because 110 is located ahead of 120 in Fig. 1A, wherein the 120 comprising the first and second manifolds 220a and 220b in Fig. 2A);
a processing unit (the processing unit of control system 130 in Fig. 17, which comprises at least 1704, 1706, 1708, and 1710) configured to:
a) perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image (per [0198], the image acquired by the camera 112 is stored at granularity of pixels and per [0197 and 0201-0202], the control system 130 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, the processing unit of control system 130 performs the object recognition function as claimed);
b) generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system of the system (per [0200], 1706 of the control system 130 identify the location of the system, and per [0197 and 0201-0202], the control system 130 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, the processing unit of control system 130 generates a mapping of the object as claimed),
c) continuously track a position of the objects on the mapping (per [0200], 1706 of the control system 130 identify the location of the system, and per [0197 and 0201-0202], the control system 130 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field, and thus, the processing unit of control system 130 continuous track a position of the objects as claimed); and
a control unit configured to control the first array of nozzles (a first valve assembly 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262a area of the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A controls the first array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A, wherein the valve assembly 278 is the valve 192 in Fig. 1D controls a corresponding nozzle 194, see [0090 and 0094]) and the second array of nozzles (a second valve assembly 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262b area of the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A controls the second array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A, wherein the valve assembly 278 is the valve 192 in Fig. 1D controls a corresponding nozzle 194, see [0090 and 0094]) to perform a low-resolution spot spraying (because the first array of nozzles 230 at the area 262a of the first manifold 220a has a wide distance, see annotated Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]) and a high-resolution spot spraying (because the second array of nozzles 230 at the area 262b of the second manifold 220b has a narrow distance, see annotated Fig. 2A and [0096 and 0106]) respectively on different objects (different corps per [0198], which are object 102s in Fig. 1A) based at least in part on the mapping of the different objects on the coordinate system of the system and the position of the different objects on the mapping (per [0197 and 0201-0202], the control system 130 in Fig. 17 identified the position of plant, the location of the system, and configured to selectively activate spraying with a selective group of nozzles/patterns/spray materials while the system travels through the field by sending signals to the valve assemblies, which are the respective 278s in Fig. 2B coupled to the first array of nozzles and the second array of nozzles in annotated Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
1008
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
876
1184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Brown further teaches wherein the spraying equipment further comprises a fluid distribution system (160 in Fig. 1C) arranged to provide to the first arrays of nozzles (the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1, which is indicated as nozzle 162 in Fig. 1C) a first chemical mixture (a first portion of the mixture of chemical from 176 and water from 164 that provides to the 230s at area 262a of the first manifold 220a, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) and provide to the second arrays of nozzles (the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see Fig. 1C and [0080], and annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) a second chemical mixture (a second portion of the mixture of chemical from 176 and water from 164 that provides to the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see Fig. 1C and [0080], and annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1), such that the spraying equipment sprays the first and the second chemical mixtures in a single passage (aligns with axis 250 in Fig. 2A), wherein the first and the second chemical mixtures comprise a fertilizer ([0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Brown further teaches wherein the control unit is operated to control each nozzle of the first arrays of nozzles (the first valve assembly 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262a area of the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A controls the first array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) and the second arrays of nozzles (the second valve assembly 278 in Fig. 2B at the 262b area of the second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A controls the second array of nozzles, see annotated Fig. 2A) to perform on the cultivated field the following operations: performing a low-resolution spot spraying (by activate the first valve assembly 278 of the first array of nozzles in annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) while the high-resolution spot spraying is not performed (by deactivate the second valve assembly 278 of the second array of nozzles in annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1; per [0090, 0107 and 0105] the controller 150 independently control each group of nozzles via a respective valve assembly 278 such that at least a portion of the treatment fluid is sprayed).
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.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Sandbrook 20240397928.
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not teach wherein the spraying equipment
comprises a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure to a ground surface.
However, Sandbrook teaches wherein the spraying equipment (comprising supporting structure 120 and an array of nozzles 134s, see Fig. 1 and per [0038], 134 may be a sprayer tool or watering tool) comprises a distance measurement sensor (140 in Fig. 1, which per [0054] is mounted under the supporting structure 120) to measure a distance from the supporting structure to a ground surface (per [0027], sensor 140 is a LIDAR sensor provides a 3D image to a controller 150 in order for the controller 150 to measure the distance between the group where the crops are and the supporting structure 120 where 134s are and per [0071-0072], sensor 140 and a camera are mounted under the supporting structure 120 and cooperated to capture optical images for depicting crop bed profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown with Sandbrook’s distance measurement sensor, such that
wherein the spraying equipment comprises a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance from the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure to a ground surface (the modification is to mount Sandbrook’s distance measurement sensor 140 under both of Brown’s first and second supporting structures, which read on the claimed limitation)
in order to predict present and location of the target plant and selectively perform an action on the target plant in a narrow time widow with increased accuracy (Sandbrook, [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s sensor 140) is mounted along the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure (as taught by Sandbrook’s [0054], Sandbrook’s sensors 140 in Sandbrook’s Fig. 1 is mounted under and along both of Brown’s first and second supporting structures 270s of Brown’s manifold 260B as shown in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that are Brown’s first manifold 220a and Brown’s second manifold 220b in Brown’s Fig. 2A, which read on the claimed limitation).
The motivation of the combination of Brown in view of Sandbrook is the same as the reason explained for the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein a distance information (Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, extracted from the 3D images taken by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 as taught by Sandbrook’s [0023]) measured by the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s sensor 140) is transmitted to the control unit (interpreted as Brown’s height control system comprising Brown’s first height actuator, i.e., Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, and Brown’s second height actuator, i.e., Brown’s second 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s second manifold 220b in Fig. 2A, wherein per Brown’s [0111], Brown’s 280s are controlled to rotate Brown’s first and second supporting structures based on the detected height of plants and per Brown’s [0197-0198 and 0201] the detected height of plants is based on the images captured by the camera 112 of the detection system, which means Brown’s height control system further comprising a processing unit to control Brown’s first and second height actuators based on the distance information acquired by Brown’s camera 112; and per Sandbrook’s [0023 and 0071-0072], the distance information measure by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 and the images acquired by Sandbrook’s camera are transmitted to Sandbrook’s controller 150 for depicting crop bed profile) to regulate the height of the first supporting structure (by controlling Brown’s first height actuator, i.e., Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A to rotate Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) and the height to the second supporting structure (by controlling Brown’s second height actuator, i.e., Brown’s second 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s second manifold 220b in Brown’s Fig. 2A to rotate Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s second manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) relative to the ground surface as a function of the distance information (because Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, is used to depicting the crop bed profiles that used to navigate and/or selectively activate nozzles 134, see Sandbrook’s Fig. 1 and [0023 and 0027]).
The motivation of the combination of Brown in view of Sandbrook is the same as the reason explained for the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Sandbrook 20240397928, and in further view of Leger 20240130350.
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Sandbrook further teaches wherein the height control system (comprising Brown’s first height actuator, i.e., Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, wherein per Brown’s [0111], Brown’s 280 is controlled to rotate Brown’s first supporting structure, i.e., Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, based on the detected height of plants, per Brown’s [0076-0077] the array of nozzles is actuated/adjusted to aim to spay the target plant while the system travelling through the field, and per Brown’s [0197-0198 and 0201] the detected height of plants is based on the images captured by the camera 112 of the detection system, which means Brown’s height control system further comprising a processing unit to control Brown’s first height actuator based on the distance information acquired by the camera 112; and per Sandbrook’s [0023 and 0071-0072], the distance information measure by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 and the images acquired by Sandbrook’s camera are transmitted to Sandbrook’s controller 150 for depicting crop bed profile) regulates the distance between the first supporting structure and the ground (by controlling Brown’s first height actuator, i.e., Brown’s first 280 of Brown’s manifold 260B in Brown’s Figs. 2E-2F that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A to rotate Brown’s 270 of Brown’s manifold 260B that is Brown’s first manifold 220a in Brown’s Fig. 2A, see demonstration in Brown’s annotated Figs. 2G-2H in claim 1) as a function of information comprising a distance information from the distance measurement sensor (Sandbrook’s 3D data, e.g., spherical coordinates, extracted from the optical images taken by Sandbrook’s sensor 140 as taught by Sandbrook’s [0023]).
The motivation of the combination of Brown in view of Sandbrook is the same as the reason explained for the rejection of claim 3 above.
Brown in view of Sandbrook does not teach a function of information comprising data from a 3D depth sensor and motion information of the second supporting structure.
However, Leger teaches wherein the control system (the gimbal assembly per [0058]) regulates the distance between the array of nozzles (272 in Fig. 2) and the target plants (based on the location of the target plants and movement of the target plant/the system vehicle 310, see Fig. 3A and [0058]) as a function of information comprising a distance information (in order to identify and localize the plant, see [0052]) from the distance measurement sensor (251 in Fig. 2 belongs to the treatment control system), data from a 3D depth sensor (the depth sensor included in the sensing system 232 in Fig. 2 belongs to the navigation system, see [0048]), and motion information (provided by speed meters included in the sensing system 232, which also belongs to the navigation system) of the supporting structure (where the array of nozzles 272s are mounted, e.g., the 624a in Fig. 6A, which is moving when the system vehicle 310 traveling through the field see Fig. 3A; and per [0048] the speed of the movement of the system vehicle 310 and data from the depth sensor included in the sensing system 232 in Fig. 2 are fused with the distance information from the distance measurement sensor 251 in Fig. 2 to control the pose and orientation of the array of nozzles 270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown in view of Sandbrook with Leger’s 3D depth sensor and speed meter, such that
wherein the height control system regulates the distance between the first supporting structure and the ground as a function of information comprising a distance information from the distance measurement sensor, data from a 3D depth sensor, and motion information of the second supporting structure (the modification is to provide data from Leger’s 3D depth sensor and motion information of Brown’s system vehicle, where Brown’s second supporting structure is mounted and moved along with, from Leger’s 3D speed meter to control pose and orientation of the array of nozzles of Brown in view of Sandbrook, which read on the claimed limitation)
in order to effectively and efficiently produce and harvest crops and reduce the amount of chemicals used on plants and cultivated land (Leger, [0002-0003]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Sullivan 20190104720.
Regarding claim 7, Brown further teaches wherein the second array of nozzles (the 230s at area 262b of the second manifold 220b, see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1) comprises a plurality of segments each comprising a series of nozzles (per [0107], the 230s at area 262b may be divided as a left subject of four nozzles, a middle subset of five nozzles, and a right subset of one nozzle), and wherein the height control system comprises the height actuator to control a distance of the second array of nozzles to the ground (the first height actuator, i.e., the first 280 of the manifold 260B in Figs. 2E-2F that is the first manifold 220a in Fig. 2A, controls a distance of the first supporting structure, where the second array of nozzle are mounted, to the ground, i.e., see annotated Fig. 2G-2H in claim 1 for demonstration).
Brown does not teach wherein the height control system comprises an actuator per segment to independently control a distance of each segment to the ground.
However, Sullivan teaches wherein the array of nozzles (the array of nozzles mounted on 316 in Fig. 3) comprises a plurality of segments (320s, Fig. 3) each comprising a series of nozzles (per [0049 and 0045], each segment 320 in Fig. 3 comprising a series of nozzles, e.g., 214s in Fig. 2), and wherein a height control system comprises an actuator per segment (a respective set of actuators 352 and 354 for a respective segment of the plurality of segments 320s, see Fig. 3) to independently control a distance of each segment to the ground ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Brown with Sullivan’s teaching of independently controlling each of the plurality of segments using a respective actuator, such that
wherein the second array of nozzles comprises a plurality of segments each comprising a series of nozzles, and wherein the height control system comprises an actuator per segment to independently control a distance of each segment to the ground (the modification is instead of using a common actuator to control Brown’s plurality of segments at same time, using a respective actuator coupled to each of Brown’s plurality of segments to independently control a distance of each of Brown’s plurality of segments to the ground as taught by Sullivan)
in order to achieve more precise control along the entire supporting structure when the system moves through the field having different terrain (Sullivan, [0049]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown 20200107537 in view of Fu 20220101554.
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to further i) merge the acquired image of the objects and a depth map of the objects to obtain a 3D image, ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object.
However, Fu teaches wherein the processing unit (200 in Fig. 2) is configured to further i) merge the acquired image (the image acquired by camera 212, e.g., 700 in Fig. 7A, see Fig. 2 and [0095]) of the objects (102 and 106, Fig. 1E) and a depth map (740 in Fig, 7C) of the objects to obtain a 3D image (the labelled depth map 760 in Fig. 7D and [0148]), ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object (the edge of different objects is extracted to separate the different objects, e.g., edge of weed 764 is extract to identify the location and the size of weed 764, in order to provide different treatment, see Fig. 7D and [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Brown with Fu’s method of i) merge the acquired image of the objects and a depth map of the objects to obtain a 3D image, ii) extract on the 3D image a set of features comprising an edge of an object for tracking the position of the object in order to improve treatment accuracy, treatment speed, computation speed when performing farming actions in the field (Fu, [0153]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9, 12, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Examiner further considered at least the references listed below:
Davis 20180243774 teaches a system for spraying an area of a cultivated field comprising a spraying equipment, the spraying equipment comprising: a first supporting structure and a second supporting structure, wherein the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating, wherein the first supporting structure comprises a first array of nozzles separated from each other by a first distance, wherein the second supporting structure comprises a second array of nozzles separated from each other by a second distance equal to the first distance; a height control system comprising at least a height actuator to control independently a height of the first supporting structure and a height of the second supporting structures with reference to a ground; a camera system configured to acquire an image of objects, wherein the objects comprise at least a portion of a plant and the ground ahead of the first supporting structure or the second supporting structure in the travel direction of the system; a processing unit configured to: a) perform object recognition to identify the objects on the acquired image; b) generate a mapping of the objects on a coordinate system of the system, c) continuously track a position of the objects on the mapping; and a control unit configured to control the first array of nozzles and the second array of nozzles to perform a first spot spraying and a second spot spraying respectively on different objects based at least in part on the mapping of the different objects on the coordinate system of the system and the position of the different objects on the mapping.
Klemann 20210378228 teaches a system for spraying an area of a cultivated field comprising a spraying equipment, the spraying equipment comprising: a common supporting structure, wherein the common supporting structure extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating, wherein the common supporting structure comprises a first array of nozzles and a second array of nozzles, such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles; a camera system configured to acquire an image of objects, wherein the objects comprise at least a portion of a plant and the ground.
Funseth 10773271 teaches a system for spraying an area of a cultivated field comprising a spraying equipment, the spraying equipment comprising: a common supporting structure, wherein the common supporting structure extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating, wherein the common supporting structure comprises a first array of nozzles and a second array of nozzles, such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles.
Kowalchuk 9451740 teaches a system for spraying an area of a cultivated field comprising a spraying equipment, the spraying equipment comprising: a first supporting structure and a second supporting structure, wherein the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure extend perpendicularly to a travel direction of the system when operating, wherein the first supporting structure comprises a first array of nozzles separated from each other by a first distance, wherein the second supporting structure comprises a second array of nozzles separated from each other by a second distance smaller than the first distance, such that a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the second array of nozzles is higher than a spatial resolution of spot sprays sprayed by the first array of nozzles.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach in combination with other limitations of claim 8, which requires the first supporting structure is adapted to be extended laterally, either by translation (interpreted as changing the formation/configuration of the first supporting structure) or by unfolding of one or more of supporting structure extensions so as to provide a larger working width (“larger” is determined based on a comparison between the first supporting structure without the one or more supporting structure extensions and the first supporting structure with the one or more supporting structure extensions) for full spray application to achieve continuous and homogeneous spray application (in light of the specification, term “continuous and homogeneous spray application” is interpreted as spraying the entire area that is covered by the system, see [0002] of the specification).
Claim 9 is allowable because it depends on claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach in combination with other limitations of claim 12, which requires a 3D depth sensor arranged to measure a distance between any point of the objects on the acquired image, wherein the mapping of the objects on the coordinate system of the system is based at least in part on the distance measured by the 3D depth sensor, and a depth mapping generated based on the measured distance is used for correction of a horizontal mapping error caused by a height difference between an estimated object plane and a real object position in order to form the mapping of the objects on the coordinate system.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach in combination with other limitations of claim 14, which requires the camera system is tilted around a rotation axis placed horizontally and perpendicularly to the forward direction to set a first distance and a second distance, wherein the second distance is smaller than the first distance and the optical axis is tilted to:
set the first distance when the low-resolution spot spraying is used, thereby increasing the time for computation and consequently to allow speed increase of the system,
set the second distance when the high-resolution spot spraying is used, wherein the speed of the system is limited to allow high-precision mapping of one or more plants with reference to the ground.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights