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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation “lithium-ion battery” interpreted as not required by the claim. Also, it is not clear what “the latter” is referring to.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerard et al. (EP 0053994 A1) hereinafter, Gerard in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2305927 B1) hereinafter, Joo and further in view of Joitescu et al. (US 2002/0171236 A1) hereinafter, Joitescu.
Regarding claim 9, Gerard teaches an autonomous agricultural vehicle comprising a framework (3), wheels (4), the framework having a width, two flanks on either side of a longitudinal axis of the autonomous agricultural vehicle, and a top (Fig 1), at least one tool (10) being able to be accommodated in a useful volume defined by the width and the top of the framework (Fig 1), the autonomous agricultural vehicle further comprising a propulsion system comprising an electric motor (Sixth to last Para of Page 3), the framework further comprising two transverse beams attached to two longitudinal beams, the at least one hydrogen cylinder resting by its ends and being attached to the two transverse beams (Fig 1).
However, Gerard does not teach that the autonomous agricultural vehicle further comprising a hydrogen-powered propulsion system.
Joo teaches a hydrogen-powered propulsion system comprising at least one hydrogen fuel cell (200), wherein said autonomous agricultural vehicle further comprises at least one hydrogen cylinder (100) arranged longitudinally on top of the framework (Fig 2), the hydrogen fuel cell being configured to consume hydrogen from the at least one hydrogen cylinder and oxygen captured from the air, so as to supply electrical energy to an electric motor of the hydrogen-powered propulsion system (Third Para of Page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Joo, with a hydrogen propulsion system, since hydrogen fuel offers higher energy density by weight, faster refueling, and long-range capability.
However, Gerard in view of Joo does not teach that the at least one hydrogen cylinder resting by its ends and being attached to the two transverse beams.
Joitescu teaches that the at least one hydrogen cylinder resting by its ends and being attached to the two transverse beams (31, 32, Fig 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Joitescu, with the at least one hydrogen cylinder resting by its ends and being attached to the two transverse beams, to pensure more secure connection.
Regarding claim 10, modified Gerard teaches the vehicle of claim 9. However, modified Gerard does teach two hydrogen cylinders.
Joitescu teaches two hydrogen cylinders (20) arranged longitudinally on the top of the framework parallel to each other, on either side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’ vehicle, in view of Joitescu, with two cylinders, for long-range capability.
Regarding claim 11, modified Gerard teaches that the distance between the two transverse beams, along the longitudinal axis, is adjustable (Gerard; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gerard teaches a battery (source of electrical energy) arranged on one flank of the framework and attached to the latter (Fourth to last Para of page 4 and Fig 1 of Gerard).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerard et al. (EP 0053994 A1) hereinafter, Gerard in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2305927 B1) hereinafter, Joo and further in view of Joitescu et al. (US 2002/0171236 A1) and further in view of Hirosuke (JP 2020-157924 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gerard teaches the vehicle of claim 9. However, modified Gerard is silent about the hydrogen cell supplying the electrical equipment.
Hirosuke teaches that the hydrogen fuel cell also supplies electrical energy to one or more items of electrical equipment on the autonomous agricultural vehicle (Last Para of Page 2 and second and fifth Para of Page 5), including: one or more electrical power converters (25); one or more batteries (29); one or more computers (27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Hirosuke with supplying the electrical equipment with the hydrogen cell, since it is the main power source.
Regarding claim 14, modified Gerard teaches the vehicle of claim 9. However, modified Gerard is silent the vehicle comprising a computer.
Hirosuke teaches at least one air filter (26a) adapted to filter air and at least one computer (27) arranged on a flank of the autonomous agricultural vehicle, and being configured to control the admission of hydrogen from the at least one hydrogen cylinder and oxygen obtained by means of the air filter, in the at least one hydrogen fuel cell, to produce a quantity of electrical energy powering the electric motor of the hydrogen- powered propulsion system (Last Para of Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Hirosuke, a computer and a filter, to ensure efficient functionality of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerard et al. (EP 0053994 A1) hereinafter, Gerard in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2305927 B1) hereinafter, Joo and further in view of Joitescu et al. (US 2002/0171236 A1) and further in view of Walker et al. (US 2011/0022231 A1) hereinafter, Walker.
Regarding claim 15, modified Gerard teaches the vehicle of claim 9. However, modified Gerard does not teach a spraying means.
Walker teaches at least one tank (implicit) configured to comprise an active product and means for spraying (22) the active product arranged in the useful volume, substantially in a longitudinal median plane of the autonomous agricultural vehicle (Fig 1A and Para [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Walker, with spraying means, to enable applying products, like pesticides or fertilizers to the crops more effectively.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerard et al. (EP 0053994 A1) hereinafter, Gerard in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2305927 B1) hereinafter, Joo and further in view of Joitescu et al. (US 2002/0171236 A1) and further in view of Walker et al. (US 2011/0022231 A1) and further in view of Alain (FR 2810200 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Gerard teaches the vehicle of claim 15. However, modified Gerard does not teach a containment panel.
Alain teaches containment panels (adjustable ramps 6) arranged on the flanks of the autonomous agricultural vehicle and configured to block the diffusion of active product to the outside of the useful volume (Second Para of 3 and Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Gerard’s vehicle, in view of Alain, with containment panels, to ensure efficient spraying.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach agricultural vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights