DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-15 are currently pending, with claims 10, 11, and 14 having been previously withdrawn.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 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 1-3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a detection section that determines whether or not a detection target is an irradiation target based on an image of the detection target: an identification section 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, where the specific part is designated in advance as a region that has a length smaller than an entire length of the irradiation target and that is entirely irradiatable with the shooting laser light.” It is unclear whether or not the detection section, or any component of the irradiation device, performs “where the specific part is designated in advance as a region that has a length smaller than an entire length of the irradiation target and that is entirely irradiatable with the shooting laser light.” Because one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Further, the recitation “where the specific part is designated in advance as a region that has a length smaller than an entire length of the irradiation target and that is entirely irradiatable with the shooting laser light” renders claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 indefinite. The invention is described in reference to an object that is variable, i.e., the specific part of the irradiation target. In order for the device to function, 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 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.1 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 §§ 102 and 103
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.
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 1-3, 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by, or alternatively, 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 discloses 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, where the specific part is designated in advance as a region that has a length smaller than an entire length of the irradiation target and that is entirely irradiatable with the shooting laser light (¶¶ [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 (¶¶ [0027]-[0030], [0063]-[0065], [0076]).
In case it is argued that Hyde does not explicitly teach 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 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 discloses 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, where the specific part is designated in advance as a region that has a length smaller than an entire length of the irradiation target and that is entirely irradiatable with the shooting laser light (¶¶ [0022], [0024], [0027]-[0030], [0076]). In case it is argued, however, that Hyde does not explicitly teach 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 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.
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Britannica https://www.britannica.com/animal/long-horned-beetle
Prosecution Insights