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 .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/07/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The preliminarily amended list of claims 1-15 is pending in this application. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 01/07/2025:
Claim(s) 1-15 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to due to the following minor informalities.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites: “wherein the landing platform has a photovoltaic panel or is itself configured as a photovoltaic panel and the charging energy storage means is chargeable by means of the photovoltaic panel;” which is a minor antecedent basis issue. The cited claim limitation should be amended to instead recite: “wherein the landing platform has a photovoltaic panel or is itself configured as the photovoltaic panel and the charging energy storage means is chargeable by means of the photovoltaic panel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10 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. In particular claim 10 recites: “The system according to claim 9, wherein it has at least one landing platform for the drones; the landing platform offers space for a plurality of drones; and the at least one charging device is integrated in the landing platform.” The use of the word “it” renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine which previously recited noun the term “it” is replacing in this context. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as reciting: “The system according to claim 9, wherein the system further comprises
Claims 11-14 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on rejected claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies cited above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064094 A1) in view of Wang (United States Patent 9,056,676 B1) referenced as Cantrell and Wang, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Cantrell discloses:
“A system for controlling pests on plants that are located in an agricultural area, having a swarm of drones which are configured to fly to plants autonomously and are each equipped with a sensor for detecting pest infestation” [Cantrell; "The exemplary method 400 depicted in FIG. 4 includes providing one or more UAVs 120 including one or more sensors 122 configured to detect one or more pests in the crop-containing area 110 and one or more output devices 124 configured to eliminate the detected pest or pests from the crop-containing area 110 (step 410);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: ¶: 0064-0066, 0068-0070];
“and a control device for controlling the drones, wherein the control device and the drones are equipped with communication devices for mutual exchange of data” [Cantrell; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cantrell discloses a computing device(denoted 140 in Fig. 1) which controls the plurality of UAVs using a wireless network(denoted 150 in Fig. 1) to communicate with the wireless transceivers(denoted 212 in Fig. 2) on-board the plurality of UAVs; ¶: 0016-0018, 0038-0040];
“and are equipped with a laser device suitable for pest control and are configured to effect targeted control of detected pest infestation by means of the laser device” [Cantrell; "A light-generating device may, for example, emit one or more lights configured to drive away and/or in the future deter one or more pests from the crop-containing area 110. For example, after the pest detected by the sensor 122 of the UAV 120 is identified by the computing device 140, the output device 124 of the UAV 120 may emit a continuous or intermittent beam of light that was predetermined (e.g., by the computing device 140 or by a control circuit internal to the UAV 120) to be most optimal to drive the detected pest away from the crop-containing area 110. In one aspect, the light-generating device may generate a light that acts as an alert indicative that one or more pests have been detected in the crop-containing area 110 by one or more sensors 122 of the UAV 120. In one aspect, the light-generating device may be configured with a laser-emitting source configured to drive away (i.e., scare) one or more pests from the crop-containing area 110 and/or to eliminate (i.e., kill) one or more pests in the crop-containing area 110;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0023].
Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the drones have a maximum size of 25 cm;” however, this is known in the art.
Wang, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling UAVs, teaches: “wherein the drones have a maximum size of 25 cm” [Wang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Wang discloses a configuration of a lightweight UAV in which the UAV is disclosed to have a dimension no greater than 25 cm; Col: 10, Line: 39-Col: 11, Line: 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding a UAV configuration that has a wing-span less than 25 cm as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to achieve a lightweight design, which has known benefits in the art with regards to reduced power consumption, for example [Wang; ¶: Col: 10, Line: 39-Col: 11, Line: 7].
With respect to claim 3, Cantrell discloses: “wherein the control device is configured to define an agricultural target area to be treated and to communicate that area to the drones, the drones being configured to fly to plants within the defined target area” [Cantrell; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cantrell discloses deploying a plurality of UAVs to eliminate pests in a disclosed crop-containing area(denoted 110 in Fig. 1); ¶: 0015, 0016].
With respect to claim 5, Cantrell discloses: “wherein the drones are configured to transmit data captured by their sensors to the control device; and the control device is configured to analyse data transmitted by the drones and consequently transmit control information to the drones” [Cantrell; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cantrell discloses that the UAVs may transmit data from the one or more on-board sensors(denoted 122 in Fig. 1) to the computing device, wherein the computing device further analyzes the data to: "identify the environmental factor responsible for the crop damage, and to determine a set of instructions for the UAV 120 to remedy such a crop-damaging environmental factor;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0032; See also: ¶: 0031, 0033, 0034].
With respect to claim 6, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the drones have a maximum take-off weight of 500 g;” however, this is known in the art.
Wang teaches: “wherein the drones have a maximum take-off weight of 500 g” [Wang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Wang discloses a configuration of a lightweight UAV in which the UAV is disclosed to weigh less than 500 grams; Col: 10, Line: 39-Col: 11, Line: 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding a UAV configuration that has a take-off mass less than 500 grams as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to achieve a lightweight design, which has known benefits in the art with regards to reduced power consumption, for example [Wang; ¶: Col: 10, Line: 39-Col: 11, Line: 7].
With respect to claim 7, Cantrell discloses: “wherein the drones are equipped with a position determination device” [Cantrell; "For example, in some embodiments, the UAV 120 and/or docking station 130 may include a GPS tracking device that permits a GPS-based identification of the location of the UAV 120 and/or docking station 130 by the computing device 140 via the network 150;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0065].
With respect to claim 15, Cantrell discloses: “wherein at least some functionalities of the control device are implemented as software provided on a server in the internet” [Cantrell; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cantrell discloses that the computing device may comprise a server to control the one or more UAVs via the network; ¶: 0056].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell in view of Wang and JIANG et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 110887026 A) referenced as Jiang moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the laser device has an automatically adjustable optical system by means of which the focal point is adjustable.”
Jiang, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling UAVs, teaches: “wherein the laser device has an automatically adjustable optical system by means of which the focal point is adjustable” [Jiang; "When tracking a designated target, the illumination module 34 can concentrate the light source at a focal point to make the light source more focused;" ¶: 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a UAV to automatically control the focal point of a light outputting device to concentrate the light as taught by Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to reactively control the power of the light source to conserve energy when possible [Jiang; ¶: 0067].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell in view of Wang and Jacob (United States Patent 9,894,327 B1) referenced as Jacob moving forward.
With respect to claim 4, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the drones are configured to communicate with one another directly or via the control device.”
Jacob, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling UAVs, teaches: “wherein the drones are configured to communicate with one another directly or via the control device” [Jacob; "As depicted in FIG. 1, the central monitoring system 121, the UGV 150, and the UAVs 130.1-130.N may communicate between and among each other via one or more networks 115 and/or 120;" Fig. 1; Col: 4, Lines: 17-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a plurality of UAVs to communicate with one another and a ground station, on which the UAVs may recharge, as taught by Jacob with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to enable continued deployment of UAVs and UGVs in areas that would be otherwise dangerous for humans to work in manually [Jacob; ¶: Abstract; Col: 1, Lines: 17-49].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell in view of Wang and Schumann et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0043138 A1) referenced as Schumann moving forward.
With respect to claim 8, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the drones have an orientation arrangement for orienting the laser device with respect to a target object.”
Schumann, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling UAVs, teaches: “wherein the drones have an orientation arrangement for orienting the laser device with respect to a target object” [Schumann; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schumann teaches a gimbal system that connects a lighting system to a drone, such that the drone may track target during flight and automatically adjust the gimbal to ensure the light remains on the target; ¶: 0010-0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling a gimbal on a drone to point a light towards a target as taught by Schumann with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to enable light coverage of an area based on the vertical height of the drone [Schumann; ¶: 0010-0014].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell in view of Wang and Mitchell et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0152595 A1) referenced as Mitchell moving forward.
With respect to claim 9, Cantrell does not specifically state: “and in the event of their energy storage means requiring charging, the drones are configured to discontinue their activity, autonomously fly to the at least one charging device, charge their energy storage means and resume their activity automatically once their energy storage means has been charged.”
Mitchell, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling UAVs, teaches: “and in the event of their energy storage means requiring charging, the drones are configured to discontinue their activity, autonomously fly to the at least one charging device, charge their energy storage means and resume their activity automatically once their energy storage means has been charged” [Mitchell; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Mitchell teaches controlling a UAV to survey an area and deter animals in the area(denoted 204 in Fig. 2), pausing operation of the UAV to land and charge the UAV as necessary(denoted 205 in Fig. 2) and subsequently resume surveying and determining animals in the area when there are no safety or technical issues identified(denoted in the NO branch of 206 in Fig. 2); Fig. 2; ¶: 0020-0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically pausing operation of a UAV to re-charge at a base station and subsequently resuming operation of the UAV as taught by Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to optimally manage a plurality of UAVs based on the resources available in order to ensure continued animal deterrence for the defined area [Mitchell; ¶: 0020-0022].
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell in view of Wang, Jacob and Mitchell.
With respect to claim 10, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein it has at least one landing platform for the drones; the landing platform offers space for a plurality of drones; and the at least one charging device is integrated in the landing platform.”
Jacob teaches: “wherein it has at least one landing platform for the drones; the landing platform offers space for a plurality of drones; and the at least one charging device is integrated in the landing platform” [Jacob; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Jacob teaches an Unmanned Ground Vehicle(UGV) depicted, for example, in Fig. 2A. Jacob further teaches that the UGV provides a plurality of landing pads(denoted 280 in Fig. 2A) to accommodate a plurality of drones(denoted 230.1, 230.2 and 230.N in Fig. 2A), wherein the landing pads are configured with a charging/battery replacement system(denoted 260 in Fig. 2A) integrated directly therein to perform charging of the one or more docked UAV's; Col: 6, Lines: 13-51; See also: Fig. 2B; Col: 7, Line: 63-Col: 8, Line: 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a plurality of UAVs to communicate with one another and a ground station, on which the UAVs may recharge, as taught by Jacob with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to enable continued deployment of UAVs and UGVs in areas that would be otherwise dangerous for humans to work in manually [Jacob; ¶: Abstract; Col: 1, Lines: 17-49].
With respect to claim 11, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the landing platform has an electrical charging energy storage means for supplying energy to the at least one charging device.”
Jacob teaches: “wherein the landing platform has an electrical charging energy storage means for supplying energy to the at least one charging device” [Jacob; "As depicted in FIG. 2B, the UGV 250 may include the charging/battery replacement system 260 that may be a part of the landing pad 280. The charging/battery replacement system 260 may include a charging port socket (or an inductive charging pad) 262, a battery replacement mechanism 263, and a spare battery storage/retrieval area 264. The charging port socket (or inductive charging pad) 262 on the landing pad 280 may physically connect with or make contact with the charging port 232 on the UAV 230. The battery 233 may be charged or replaced depending on the length of time before the UAV 230 is required to be airborne. The energy source for charging the battery 233 may be any of a combination of components depicted in FIG. 2A, such as the UGV 250 battery(is) 252, an alternator on the UGV engine 251, or from the solar cells 257;" Fig. 2B; Col: 7, Line: 63-Col: 8, Line: 10; See also: Fig. 2A; Col: 6, Lines: 13-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a plurality of UAVs to communicate with one another and a ground station, on which the UAVs may recharge, as taught by Jacob with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to enable continued deployment of UAVs and UGVs in areas that would be otherwise dangerous for humans to work in manually [Jacob; ¶: Abstract; Col: 1, Lines: 17-49].
With respect to claim 12, Cantrell does not specifically state: “wherein the landing platform has a photovoltaic panel or is itself configured as a photovoltaic panel and the charging energy storage means is chargeable by means of the photovoltaic panel.”
Jacob teaches: “wherein the landing platform has a photovoltaic panel or is itself configured as a photovoltaic panel and the charging energy storage means is chargeable by means of the photovoltaic panel” [Jacob; "As depicted in FIG. 2B, the UGV 250 may include the charging/battery replacement system 260 that may be a part of the landing pad 280. The charging/battery replacement system 260 may include a charging port socket (or an inductive charging pad) 262, a battery replacement mechanism 263, and a spare battery storage/retrieval area 264. The charging port socket (or inductive charging pad) 262 on the landing pad 280 may physically connect with or make contact with the charging port 232 on the UAV 230. The battery 233 may be charged or replaced depending on the length of time before the UAV 230 is required to be airborne. The energy source for charging the battery 233 may be any of a combination of components depicted in FIG. 2A, such as the UGV 250 battery(is) 252, an alternator on the UGV engine 251, or from the solar cells 257;" Fig. 2B; Col: 7, Line: 63-Col: 8, Line: 10; See also: Fig. 2A; Col: 6, Lines: 13-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests as disclosed by Cantrell to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a plurality of UAVs to communicate with one another and a ground station, on which the UAVs may recharge, as taught by Jacob with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a plurality of UAVs to defend an area against crop damaging pests that is more robust in its ability to enable continued deployment of UAVs and UGVs in areas that would be otherwise dangerous for humans to work in manually [Jacob; ¶: Abstract; Col: 1, Lines: 17-49].
With respect to claim 13, Cantrell discloses: “wherein the landing platform is mobile” [Cantrell; "A docking station 130 of FIG. 1 is generally a device configured to permit at least one or more UAVs 120 to dock thereto. The docking station 130 may be configured as an immobile station (i.e., not intended to be movable) or as a mobile station (intended to be movable on its own, e.g., via guidance from the computing device 140, or movable by way of being mounted on or coupled to a moving vehicle), and may be located in the crop-containing area 110, or outside of the crop-containing area 110;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0048].
With respect to claim 14, Cantrell discloses: “wherein the landing platform is self-propelling” [Cantrell; "A docking station 130 of FIG. 1 is generally a device configured to permit at least one or more UAVs 120 to dock thereto. The docking station 130 may be configured as an immobile station (i.e., not intended to be movable) or as a mobile station (intended to be movable on its own, e.g., via guidance from the computing device 140, or movable by way of being mounted on or coupled to a moving vehicle), and may be located in the crop-containing area 110, or outside of the crop-containing area 110;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0048].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights