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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1 Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “ the or each UV light source” appears to be a typographical error, and will be interpreted to mean the UV light source or each UV light source. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-13, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STAGER et al. (WO 2023034066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, STAGER discloses a mobile autonomous agricultural system (fig.3; 100) comprising:
a powered mobile unit (100) for carrying agricultural equipment (55) (pgs. 27-28) , and configured to move (via wheels 120) along rows of crops (fig. 3, plants 125) (pgs. 27-28);
an ultraviolet (UV) lighting panel (10, 55) for generating UV light; and
a controller (pgs. 27-28) configured to control the travel of the mobile unit (100) and operation of the UV lighting panel (10, 55);
wherein the UV lighting panel (10) comprises:
a UV light source (55) configured to generate UV light; and
a plurality of shade elements (90, 85) arranged relative to the UV light source (10, 55) to direct the UV light in a primary illumination direction (towards the ground/plants 125) and to restrict emission of UV light from the UV lighting panel outside the primary illumination direction (pgs. 27-28)
(figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, STAGER discloses an ultraviolet (UV) lighting panel (10, 55) for a mobile autonomous agricultural system (fig. 3, 100), the UV lighting panel (10) comprising:
a UV light source (55) configured to generate UV light; and
a plurality of shade elements (90, 85) arranged relative to the UV light source (10, 55) to direct the UV light in a primary illumination direction (towards the ground/plants 125) (pgs. 27-28) and to restrict emission of UV light from the UV lighting panel outside the primary illumination direction (pgs. 27-28)
(figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, STAGER discloses that the plurality of shade elements (90, 85) are spaced apart from one another in a shading array (of 90, 85) and are arranged relative to the UV light source (55) to permit passage of the UV light between said plurality of shade elements in the primary illumination direction (towards the ground/plants 125) (pgs. 27-28).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, STAGER discloses that the UV lighting panel (10, 55) comprises a support (fig. 3; 10, 15, 105) and wherein each UV light source (55) and the plurality of shade elements (90, 85) are mounted on the support (10, 15, 105).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, STAGER discloses that each UV light source (55) is a UV-C light source configured to generate UV-C (pgs. 27-28).
Regarding claims 11, STAGER discloses that the UV lighting panel (10, 55) is one of one or more UV lighting panels (fig. 3, 10s associated with 15s) ,
wherein the powered mobile unit (100) (pgs. 27-28) comprises a profile (of 15) which defines two or more illumination zones (each under 15s), wherein each illumination zone (under 15s) is configured to receive a corresponding row of crops (125 under 15) of two or more rows of crops (plants/crops 125 shown in two rows under 15), and
wherein the one or more UV lighting panels (10s per 15s) are mounted within the profile (of 15) and arranged to direct UV light into each illumination zone (under 15).
Regarding claim 20, STAGER discloses illuminating a crop (fig. 3; 125) with UV light (55) using a mobile autonomous agricultural system (100) (pgs. 27-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2. Claim(s) 3-5 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over STAGER et al. (WO 2023034066 A1) in view of PAN (US 20220111105 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, STAGER discloses wherein each shade element (90, 85) is spaced apart from each adjacent shade element
But STAGER fails to disclose each shade element is spaced apart from each adjacent shade element by about 10 mm to about 50 mm
PAN, however, discloses a UV irradiator with shade elements (fig. 8, 864) spaced apart from each adjacent shade element
Regarding claims 3 and 14, STAGER and PAN discloses all the limitations above, the only difference is that the exact dimension(s) “adjacent shade element by about 10 mm to about 50 mm” is not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to have the claimed dimensions/sizes since it is well known in the art that adjacent shade spacing can be of various dimensions/sizes to allow space for opening and closing of the shades. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing adjacent shade spacing dimensions/sizes, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of STAGER, with adjacent shade element spaced apart as taught by PAN, to achieve a shade shutter via an opening and closing shade elements for shuttering the UV light for controlled exposure and prevention of accidental harmful UV exposure.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, STAGER discloses wherein the plurality of shade elements (90, 85) is a plurality of elongate
Regarding claims 5 and 16, STAGER discloses wherein: each
the UV light source (55) is elongate and each elongate
But STAGER fails to disclose the plurality of shade elements is a plurality of elongate fins
PAN, however, discloses a UV irradiator (840) with shade elements (fig. 8, 864) and that the plurality of shade elements is a plurality of elongate fins (fig. 8, 864)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of STAGER, with a plurality of shade elements that are a plurality of elongate fins, as taught by PAN, to use as a shade shutter via opening and closing shade fins for shuttering the UV light for controlled exposure and prevention of accidental harmful UV exposure.
2. Claim(s) 8, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over STAGER et al. (WO 2023034066 A1) in view of SUN et al. (CN 114946448 A).
Regarding claim 8 and 19, STAGER discloses wherein at least a portion of the UV lighting panel (10, 55) has a
Regarding claim 10, STAGER discloses wherein the powered mobile unit (100) (pgs. 27-38) comprises an
But STAGER fails to disclose a semiarch profile and/or an arch profile.
SUN, however, discloses a crop/plant UV irradiator (abstract) (figs. 1-7) with UV lights (21), a plurality of shade elements (11, 13, 14) and has an arch profile /semiarch profile in cross section (see fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of STAGER, with a crop/plant UV irradiator with an arch profile /semiarch profile in cross section, as taught by SUN, to use as a substitution of one known profile shape (i.e. arch/semiarch profile shape) for another (i.e. box like/rectangular shape) to obtain predictable structural support results.
2. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over STAGER et al. (WO 2023034066 A1) in view of YOSHIMURA et al. (WO 2022113590 A1).
Regarding claim 9, STAGER discloses the mobile autonomous agricultural system (100) further comprises:
or
the controller (pgs. 27-28) is configured to delay operation of the UV lighting panel (10, 55) until a predetermined period of time has passed after receiving a signal to operate the UV lighting panel (10, 55) (pgs. 27-29).
But STAGER fails to disclose
the device/UV light source.
YOSHIMURA , however, discloses an autonomous vehicle (fig. 2, 1) that uses a
at least one laser curtain sensor (fig. 2, 21) configured to project a laser curtain away from the autonomous vehicle (1); and
a safety module (4) configured to generate a safety output (pgs. 3-4) in response to determining that the laser curtain (41 and/or 4) is interrupted (by 50) (pgs. 3-4) within the laser curtain pattern (21 and/or 4) , wherein the safety output comprises a signal to disable (pgs. 3-4) the device (1) .
(fig. 2, 1, 4, 50, 51)
(pgs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of STAGER, with use of laser curtain and/or laser scanner and sensors to detect objects in vicinity of the autonomous unit, as taught by YOSHIMURA , to use for preventing accidental harm to humans/ etc. within the vicinity of the vehicle (pgs. 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights