Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending, with claims 10-11 and 14 having been previously withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 have been considered on their merits, as discussed below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “a detection section that determines whether or not a detection target is an irradiation target having an entire length of 20 mm to 60 mm based on an image of the detection target.” Nowhere in applicant’s original disclosure is there any suggestion of the detection section measuring the detection target to see whether or not it has a length of 20 mm to 60 mm. Therefore, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “an irradiation section that irradiates a specific part of the irradiation target… with a shooting laser light having a beam diameter of 1 mm to 10 mm and smaller than the entire length of the irradiation target.” Thus, claim 1 describes the invention in reference to an object that is variable, i.e., an irradiation target. Whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until the device is in fact used on a particular irradiation target. Consequently, the claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15 are indefinite. See 2173.05(b).
Claim 15 is further indefinite, for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, claim 15 recites “wherein, based on the position information, the irradiation section irradiates the specific part of the irradiation target with the shooting laser light, while leaving some region of the irradiation target non-irradiated.” In order for this to happen, the diameter of the laser light must be substantially less than the length of the irradiation target. While the specification describes an embodiment in which the irradiation target is a Spodoptera litura, Heliothis armigera, Schistocerca gregaria, or Oxya having a length of 20 mm to 60 mm (see ¶ [0012] of applicant’s specification), applicant’s disclosure does not definitively define the irradiation target to be any specific length. For example, the specification says that the irradiation target could also be a Cerambycidae (see ¶ [0012] of applicant’s specification); the length of a Cerambycidae can range in size from 2 mm to 152 mm. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until the device is used to irradiate a specific irradiation target. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, U.S. Publication No. 2010/0186284 to Hyde et al. (“Hyde”).
Regarding claim 1, Hyde teaches an irradiation device comprising: a detection section (10, 12) that determines whether or not a detection target is an irradiation target based on an image of the detection target (¶ [0022]); an identification section (16) that decides a specific part of the irradiation target and identifies position information of the irradiation target based on the image of the detection target only if the detection section determines that the detection target is the irradiation target (¶¶ [0022], [0024], [0027]-[0030], [0076]); and an irradiation section (18, 28) that that irradiates the specific part of the irradiation target based on the position information of the irradiation target with a shooting laser light having a beam diameter of 1 mm to 10 mm and smaller than the entire length of the irradiation target (¶¶ [0027]-[0030], [0063]-[0065], [0076]).
In case it is argued that Hyde does not explicitly teach that the detection section determines whether or not the target has an entire length of 20 mm to 60 mm and that the identification section decides a specific part of the irradiation target and identifies position information of the irradiation target based on the image of the detection target only if the detection section determines that the detection target is the irradiation target, then it was well known in the art before the effective filing date to perform such operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in light of the disclosure of Hyde, to modify the device of Hyde so that the detection section determines whether the detection target has an entire length of 20 mm to 60 mm and the identification section decides a specific part of the irradiation target and identifies position information of the irradiation target based on the image of the detection target only if the detection section determines that the detection target is the irradiation target, in order to irradiate the insects.
Regarding claim 2, Hyde teaches wherein the irradiation target is an insect, and the specific part is a part on a side on which legs at a thoracic part of the insect is positioned (¶ [0029], see also ¶¶ [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Hyde teaches wherein the irradiation target is an insect, and the specific part is a part at which a reproductive organ of the insect is positioned (¶ [0029] “impairing fertility,” see also ¶¶ [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Hyde teaches wherein: the irradiation section (18, 28) irradiates a predetermined range with scanning laser light (via 18); and the irradiation device comprises a light reception section that receives reflected light of the scanning laser light and generates a light reception signal which allows the detection section to detect the irradiation target (¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Hyde teaches wherein the irradiation target is an insect, and the specific part is a part on a side on which a mouth at a head part of the insect is positioned (¶ [0029], see also ¶¶ [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 15, Hyde teaches wherein, based on the three-dimensional position information, the irradiation section irradiates the specific part of the irradiation target with the shooting laser light, while leaving some region of the irradiation target non-irradiated (¶¶ [0027]-[0030], [0063]-[0065], [0076]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,348 to Guice (“Guice”).
Regarding claim 13, Hyde teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach that the image date is three-dimensional image data, wherein the detection section obtains the three-dimensional image data which has been generated by a distance measurement sensor using a time-of-flight method.
Guice teaches the image data is three-dimensional image data, wherein the detection section obtains the three-dimensional image data which has been generated by a distance measurement sensor using LiDAR (Col. 14, lines 4-22), which presumably uses a time-of-flight method. In case it is argued that the combination of Hyde and Guice does not explicitly teach that the LiDAR uses a time-of-flight method, then before the effective filing date, it was well known in the art to use a time-of-flight method when obtaining LiDAR data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Hyde and Guice combination so that the device uses a time-of-flight method, in order to further improve accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 12-13, 15 have been considered, but they are unpersuasive and/or are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection. As discussed above, Hyde, as modified, teaches each and every element of amended claim 1. Also, please note the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). While the specification describes an embodiment in which the irradiation target is a Spodoptera litura, Heliothis armigera, Schistocerca gregaria, or Oxya having a length of 20 mm to 60 mm (see ¶ [0012] of applicant’s specification), applicant’s disclosure does not definitively define the irradiation target to be any specific length. For example, the specification says that the irradiation target could also be a Cerambycidae (see ¶ [0012] of applicant’s specification); the length of a Cerambycidae can range in size from 2 mm to 152 mm.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights