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 .
Drawings
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: 100’ and 314’ in fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-19 and 21 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.
For claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 21, the limitation “and/or” is unclear if all or at least one of the claimed limitations are required. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret it as “or”.
For claims 2-3 and 5-11, the limitation “A weed control module” in line 1 is unclear because is it referring to a different weed control module than what was stated in claim 1, line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same weed control module and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “weed control module” in claims 2-3 and 5-11.
For claim 2, the limitation “maiming” in line 4 is unclear because is it referring to a different maiming than what was stated in claim 2, line 2? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same maiming and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “maiming” in claim 2.
Also, claim 2 recites the limitation "the growth" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the underside”, “the roller”, “the soil surface” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the height” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claims 12-19, the limitation “A modular weed control device” in line 1 is unclear because is it referring to a different weed control module than what was stated in claim 1, line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same weed control module and it is recommended that “A modular weed control device” be amended to –The weed control module—for claims 12-19.
For claim 12, the limitation “of claim 1” should be amended to be after the limitation “A modular weed control device”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the height” in line 5 and “the distance” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 19 the limitation “and even more preferably” is unclear if the limitation “UV-C light” is positively recited.
For claim 21, the limitation “A weed control method” in line 1 is unclear because is it referring to a different weed control method than what was stated in claim 21, line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same weed control method and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “weed control method” in claim 21.
Also, it recites the limitation “the application” in line 2 and “the ground” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt (US 4027733 A as cited in IDS) in view of Xiang (MDPI: An Investigation into the Effect of Rolling Reduction on 3D Curved Parts Rolling Process).
Regarding claim 1, Eisenhardt teaches a weed control module including: a first roller (64); and a second roller (66) for locating adjacent the first roller to cause damage to weeds (97) passing between the rollers and/or under the rollers (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 12-37), wherein the first roller includes a convex surface (fig. 9).
However, Eisenhardt is silent about wherein the second roller includes a concave surface, the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit.
Xiang teaches wherein the second roller (concave roller of fig. 1) includes a concave surface (fig. 1), the first (convex roller of fig. 1) and second rollers forming a complementary fit (the concave surface of the second roller forms a complementary fit with the convex surface of the first roller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second roller of Eisenhardt to be a concave surface, and the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit as taught by Xiang in order to have a simpler structure, improve rigidity and provide a lower cost (see “RTRAR’s equipment has a simpler structure, better rigidity, and lower cost” on page 2 of Xiang), and to further deform the object (see “produce bending deformation perpendicular to the rolling direction” on page 2 of Xiang).
Regarding claim 2, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the weed control module is used to achieve weed control by stressing and maiming the weeds (fig. 9 and Col. 4, lines 12-37 as the weeds between the rollers will become stressed and maimed) and in doing so, using the weeds as sacrificial vegetation that, secondary to their control through death or maiming, sacrificially assist the growth of planted crops (12; fig. 9, and Col. 2, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 3, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers have a curved interface (fig. 9), preferably configured to apply a vertical or pulling force to the weeds (Col. 5, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 5, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the weed control module includes motor (78, 78A, 78B and 78C) means for driving the rollers in opposite directions to draw the weeds between them (Col. 5, lines 50-66), the motor means preferably including belts (88 in fig. 8 as the chain has an upper and lower continuous surface, and so is a belt) for driving other rollers (figs. 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 6, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 5, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers are driven at different speeds (Col. 4, lines 53-56 as the rollers can rotate based on a user’s desired speed, and so will have different speeds).
Regarding claim 7, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers compress the weeds and are adjustable to adjustably control the degree of compression (Col. 4, lines 12-37 as adjusting the air pressure in the tires would control the degree of compression).
Regarding claim 8, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each roller rotates about a roller axis extending at an acute angle from vertical (fig. 2 depicts the roller axis extending at an acute angle from vertical).
Regarding claim 9, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein at least one of the rollers include a gripping surface (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37) for gripping the weeds (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37), the gripping surface preferably being a ribbed, grooved or corrugated surface (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 11, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches further including: guard means for guarding at least one of the rollers, the guard means preferably including a sheath; one or more mounting brackets, and spindles extending from the rollers and through the mounting brackets; guides for guiding weeds between the rollers; a reflector for reflecting light; a horizontal ground support roller (19, 20); and/or mechanical or electrical sensors that detect the height between ground features and the module (please note that the use of “and/or” means that only one of these features are required to be present in order to deprive the claim of novelty).
Regarding claim 12, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device and and Eisenhardt further teaches including one or more a plurality of the modules (fig. 1) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Eisenhardt as modified by a modular weed control device of claim 12, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the modules are arranged in sets (fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 57-63 as one set is 64, 66, 64a, 66a and the other set is 64b, 66b, 64c, 66c).
Regarding claim 14, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device of claim 13, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each set is located in register with a respective furrow and/or between adjacent crop rows (fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 57-63).
Regarding claim 15, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device of claim 13, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each set includes a quartet of modules (fig. 1 as one set is 64, 66, 64a, 66a and the other set is 64b, 66b, 64c, 66c), the quartet being symmetrically arranged with a pair of distal forward modules (64a, 66a, 64c, 66c) and a pair of proximal rearward modules (64, 66, 64b, 66b).
Regarding claim 16, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device of claim 12, and Eisenhardt further teaches further including: one or more light mounting frames to which lights are mounted; a frame (17) to which the modules are mounted (fig. 1); an electrical power source for powering the device (Col. 1, lines 51-65); and/or a terrain following mechanism which automatically adjusts the height of the rollers as the weed control device passes over uneven terrain so that the distance between the rollers and terrain remains constant (please note that the use of “and/or” means that only one of these features are required to be present in order to deprive the claim of novelty).
Regarding claim 20, Eisenhardt teaches a weed control method including: passing weeds between a first roller (64) and a second roller (66) located adjacent to the first roller to cause damage to the weeds (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 12-37); wherein the first roller includes a convex surface (fig. 9).
However, Eisenhardt is silent about wherein the second roller includes a concave surface, the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit.
Xiang teaches wherein the second roller (concave roller of fig. 1) includes a concave surface (fig. 1), the first (convex roller of fig. 1) and second rollers forming a complementary fit (the concave surface of the second roller forms a complementary fit with the convex surface of the first roller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second roller of Eisenhardt to be a concave surface, and the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit as taught by Xiang in order to have a simpler structure, improve rigidity and provide a lower cost (see “RTRAR’s equipment has a simpler structure, better rigidity, and lower cost” on page 2 of Xiang), and to further deform the object (see “produce bending deformation perpendicular to the rolling direction” on page 2 of Xiang).
Claim(s) 10 and 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Bourquin (US 9756845 B1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control module as claimed in claim 1, but is silent wherein at least one of the rollers includes: a heater for applying heat to the weeds; one or more fluid passages through which pneumatic air, gas and/or chemicals can be supplied to the weeds; slots in the form of deep slots and shallow slots; helical formations, whether depressed or protruding; weed contact picks on the underside face of the roller adjacent to the soil surface; and/or scalloped or uneven formations at its base.
Bourquin teaches at least one of the rollers includes: a heater for applying heat to the weeds (Col. 15, lines 37-45); one or more fluid passages through which pneumatic air, gas and/or chemicals can be supplied to the weeds; slots in the form of deep slots and shallow slots; helical formations, whether depressed or protruding; weed contact picks on the underside face of the roller adjacent to the soil surface; and/or scalloped or uneven formations at its base (please note that the use of “and/or” means that only one of these features are required to be present in order to deprive the claim of novelty).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the rollers of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang to include a heater for applying heat to the weeds by Bourquin in order to reduce the use of chemicals and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device of claim 12, but is silent about further including a stressor applicator for applying a stressor to the weeds.
Bourquin teaches a stressor applicator (Col. 15, lines 37-45) for applying a stressor to the weeds (Col. 15, lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stressor applicator for applying a stressor to the weeds as taught by Bourquin into the modular weed control device of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang in order to further reduce the spread of weeds and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin teaches a modular weed control device of claim 17, and Bourquin further teaches wherein the stressor includes any one or more of a mechanical, light, thermal (Col. 15, lines 37-45) and pneumatic stressor.
Regarding claim 21, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a weed control method of claim 20, and Eisenhardt further teaches achieving weed control (abstract) without ploughing and without the application of herbicides (Eisenhardt does not teach the use of ploughing and herbicides).
However, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang is silent about the method further involving applying a stressor to the weed and/or leaving the damaged weed in the ground to facilitate growth of a crop.
Bourquin teaches a stressor (Col. 15, lines 37-45) to the weed (Col. 15, lines 37-45) and/or leaving the damaged weed in the ground to facilitate growth of a crop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stressor to the weed and/or leaving the damaged weed in the ground to facilitate growth of a crop as taught by Bourquin into the modular weed control device of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang in order to further reduce the spread of weeds and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 20200120917 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin teaches a modular weed control device of claim 17, but is silent wherein the stressor applicator includes a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light and even more preferably UV-C light.
Jackson teaches wherein the stressor applicator (11) includes a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light ([0143]) and even more preferably UV-C light ([0143]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stressor of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin to include a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light and even more preferably UV-C light as taught by Jackson in order to burn the plant ([0143] of Jackson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson (US 4464862 A) is a weed control module.
Bezzerides (US 4383389 A) teaches first and second rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights