DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
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, 5-8, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikesell et al. (US 20210076662 A1), hereinafter Mikesell, in view of Hu (CN 105994226 A), Stark et al. (US 20240268246 A1), hereinafter Stark, and Yamaguchi et al. (US 5513201 A), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Mikesell discloses an agricultural treatment system (optical control system; Fig. 1A), comprising:
a treatment unit (optical control system; Fig. 1A)
an enclosure having a bottom portion (¶ 0020, lines 1-6, “In some aspects, the optical control module is enclosed in an enclosure, the enclosure comprising an escape window capable of transmitting the emission and the visible light and positioned in the optical path between the first reflective element and the surface. In some aspects, the optical control module is fully enclosed in the enclosure”)
a laser light source, wherein the laser light source is configured to emit a laser beam in a first direction (emitter 101, optical path 102; Fig. 1A shows emitter 101 emitting laser beam in a first direction along optical path 102);
a redirection component located within the respective treatment unit (reflective element 105; Fig. 1B), the redirection component being configured to receive the laser beam and redirect the laser beam in a second direction toward an agricultural target object outside the agricultural treatment system, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction (Fig. 1B shows reflective element 105 redirecting the laser beam from the first direction to a second direction represented by beam path 151; ¶ 0048, lines 1-4, “After exiting the optical control system, the beam 102 may be directed toward a surface, as shown in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B. In some embodiments, the surface comprises a target, for example a weed”), wherein the redirection component is moveable to redirect the emitted laser beam (¶ 0044, lines 1-3, “The positions and orientations of one or both of the first reflective element 105 and the second reflective element 106 may be controlled by actuators”);
an exit component located along the bottom portion of the respective treatment unit, wherein the exit component is configured to transition the laser beam from within the respective treatment unit to outside of the respective treatment unit and toward the agricultural target object, wherein the redirection component is configured to redirect the emitted laser beam downward through the exit component (laser escape window 107; Fig. 3B; ¶ 0048, lines 1-4); and
at least one safety component located within the agricultural treatment system (beam combining element 103; Fig. 1A);
wherein the redirection component is configured to direct the laser beam through the exit component toward a ground below the agricultural treatment system (reflective element 105, laser escape window 107; Fig. 1B; ¶ 0048, lines 1-4);
Mikesell, however, fails to specifically disclose a plurality of treatment units each comprising: a laser light source located within the enclosure of a respective treatment unit; wherein the laser light source comprises a chip array configured to emit a collimated laser beam in a first direction; a first lens positioned to receive the emitted laser beam, the first lens being configured to change a width of the laser beam; a second lens, the second lens being configured to change the width of the laser beam; wherein the at least one safety component is configured to facilitate maximizing the strength of the laser beam at or proximate the agricultural target object while also reducing the strength of the laser beam at all locations outside of the agricultural treatment system that are away from the agricultural target object; wherein the first lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the second lens, and the second lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the redirection component; and wherein shifting the first lens over a lateral range and/or shifting the second lens over another lateral range, is configured to focus the laser beam to a focal point at a location after the beam is directed by the redirection component, wherein the agricultural treatment system is configured to move relative to the agricultural target object while automatically tracking a location of the agricultural target object via one or more sensors, and is configured to determine a focal point depth based on a distance to the agricultural object, and wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement of the agricultural treatment system to maintain the focal point of the emitted laser beam at or proximate the determined focal point depth of the agricultural target object.
Hu is in the field of laser treatment targeting small objects and teaches a first lens positioned to receive the emitted laser beam, the first lens being configured to change a width of the laser beam (concave lens 21; Fig. 2 shows concave lens 21 changes a width of the laser beam); a second lens, the second lens being configured to change the width of the laser beam (second convex lens 23; Fig. 2 shows second convex lens 23 changes a width of the laser beam); wherein the at least one safety component is configured to facilitate maximizing the strength of the laser beam at or proximate the agricultural target object while also reducing the strength of the laser beam at all locations outside of the agricultural treatment system that are away from the agricultural target object (¶ 0032, “Furthermore, in order to ensure better aiming and mosquito killing, a spot adjustment mechanism can be set behind laser 1 or laser 2, as shown in Figure 2. The spot adjustment mechanism includes a concave lens 21, a first convex lens 22, and a second convex lens 23. The left focal point of the first convex lens 22 and the virtual focal point of the concave lens 21 are at the same position. Thus, the laser beam becomes a parallel beam after passing through the first convex lens 22, and then converges after passing through the second convex lens 23. The focal length of the second convex lens 23 is relatively long, about 1.5 meters. By adjusting the distance between the first convex lens 22 and the second convex lens 23, the size of the laser spot on the wall at a certain distance can be changed, that is, the laser energy density can be changed. Therefore, the large spot can be used to aim and then manually adjust the distance between the first convex lens 22 and the second convex lens 23 to gradually reduce the spot size and concentrate the energy, which is beneficial for killing mosquitoes”); wherein the first lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the second lens (Fig. 2 shows laser beam is directed from concave lens 21 to second convex lens 23 by way of first convex lens 22), and the second lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the redirection component (Fig. 2 shows laser beam exits lens structure after second convex lens 23 where it can be directed to a redirection component); and wherein shifting the first lens over a lateral range and/or shifting the second lens over another lateral range, is configured to focus the laser beam to a focal point at a location after the beam is directed by the redirection component (¶ 0032), and wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is configured to be shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement of the agricultural treatment system to maintain the focal point of the emitted laser beam at or proximate a determined focal point depth of the agricultural target object (¶ 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of laser treatment targeting small objects before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell to include a first lens positioned to receive the emitted laser beam, the first lens being configured to change a width of the laser beam; a second lens, the second lens being configured to change the width of the laser beam; wherein the at least one safety component is configured to facilitate maximizing the strength of the laser beam at or proximate the agricultural target object while also reducing the strength of the laser beam at all locations outside of the agricultural treatment system that are away from the agricultural target object; wherein the first lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the second lens, and the second lens is configured to direct the laser beam to the redirection component; and wherein shifting the first lens over a lateral range and/or shifting the second lens over another lateral range, is configured to focus the laser beam to a focal point at a location after the beam is directed by the redirection component, and wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is configured to be shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement of the agricultural treatment system to maintain the focal point of the emitted laser beam at or proximate a determined focal point depth of the agricultural target object, as taught by the optical components and configuration of Hu. The optical configuration would allow the device to output more concentrated energy, which would improve target elimination. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Stark is in the field of laser treatment targeting small objects and teaches wherein the agricultural treatment system is configured to move relative to the agricultural target object while automatically tracking a location of the agricultural target object via one or more sensors and is configured to determine a focal point depth based on a distance to the agricultural object (¶ 0039, “targeting the plant may comprise precisely locating the plant using the targeting sensor, targeting the plant with a laser, and removing or eradicating the plant by burning it with laser light, such as infrared light. The prediction sensor may be part of a prediction module configured to determine a predicted location of an object of interest, and the targeting sensor may be part of a targeting module configured to refine the predicted location of the object of interest to determine a target location and target the object of interest with the laser at the target location. The prediction module may be configured to communicate with the targeting module to coordinate a camera handoff using point to point targeting, as described herein. The targeting module may target the object at the predicted location. In some embodiments, the targeting module may use the trajectory of the object to dynamically target the object while the system is in motion such that the position of the targeting sensor, the laser, or both is adjusted to maintain the target”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of laser treatment targeting small objects before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu such that the agricultural treatment system is configured to move relative to the agricultural target object while automatically tracking the location of the agricultural target object via one or more sensors, and is configured to determine a focal point depth based on a distance to the agricultural object, as taught by the movement and targeting system of Stark. The mobile aspect of the movement system would allow for the system to target more objects, which would improve target elimination. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Yamaguchi is in the field of configurable laser components for targeting objects and teaches wherein the laser light source comprises a chip array configured to emit a collimated laser beam in a first direction (Col. 3, lines 54-64, “In order to achieve the above objects, the semiconductor laser apparatus according to the present invention comprises a linear array laser diode having a plurality of long, narrow emitters for emitting laser beams arranged in a line in the lengthwise direction; a first collimating element for collimating the laser beams emitted by the emitters or groups of the multiple emitters in a direction perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the emitters; an optical path rotating device for rotating by a right angle the emitter length-wise axis of the cross section of each laser beam collimated only in one direction and outputting the rotated laser beams”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of configurable laser components for targeting objects before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu and Stark such that the laser light source comprises a chip array configured to emit a collimated laser beam in a first direction, as taught by the laser source and optical component structure of Yamaguchi. The chip array laser source would further enable an increase in the energy density while minimizing the light focusing area of the semiconductor laser apparatus. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi to include a plurality of treatment units in order to increase targeting capabilities. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore, 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 device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi such that the laser light source is located within the enclosure of a respective treatment unit in order to further protect it from outside elements. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1.
Mikesell discloses wherein the redirection component includes a mirror being set at a first angle with respect to the laser beam, wherein the mirror is adjustable to a plurality of other angles (¶ 0021, lines 1 and 2, “In some aspects, the first reflective element is a mirror;” Fig. 1B; ¶ 0056, lines 16-22, “One or both of the actuators may be configured to rotate the one or both of reflective elements about a first axis of rotation, and optionally a second axis of rotation, thereby changing the deflection of the beam path and translating a position at which the beam encounters a surface along a first translational axis, and optionally, along a second translational axis”).
Regarding claim 6, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 5.
Mikesell discloses wherein the redirection component further includes a turret configured to adjust the mirror from the first angle to a second angle, the first angle resulting in redirecting the laser beam in the second direction and the second angle resulting in redirecting the laser beam in a third direction different than the second direction (¶ 0044, lines 1-19, “The positions and orientations of one or both of the first reflective element 105 and the second reflective element 106 may be controlled by actuators. In some embodiments, an actuator may be a motor, a solenoid, a galvanometer, or a servo. For example, the position of the first reflective element may be controlled by a first actuator, and the position and orientation of the second reflective element may be controlled by a second actuator. In some embodiments, a single reflective element may be controlled by a plurality of actuators. For example, the first reflective element may be controlled by a first actuator along a first axis and a second actuator along a second axis. In some embodiments, a single actuator may control a reflective element along a plurality of axes. An actuator may change a position of a reflective element by rotating the reflective element, thereby changing an angle of incidence of a beam encountering the reflective element. Changing the angle of incidence may cause a translation of the position at which the beam encounters the surface”).
Regarding claim 7, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the at least one safety component includes the second lens having a convex surface, the second lens comprising a converging lens located between the laser light source and the redirection component, the converging lens being configured to focus the laser beam to a focal point located at or proximate the agricultural target object (Hu; convex lens 23; Fig. 2; ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 7, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the at least one safety component further includes the first lens having a concave surface, the first lens comprising a diverging lens located between the laser light source and the converging lens, the diverging lens being configured to expand a width of the laser beam from the diverging lens to the converging lens (Hu; concave lens 21; Fig. 2; ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 21, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to activate the laser beam at a specific time, wherein the specific time is based on at least the location of the agricultural object (Stark; ¶ 0062, “In some embodiments, a prediction system 400 may further comprise a scheduling module 445. The scheduling module 445 may select objects identified by prediction module and schedule which ones to target with the targeting system. The scheduling module 445 may schedule objects for targeting based on parameters such as object location, relative velocity, implement activation time, confidence score, or combinations thereof. For example, the scheduling module 445 may prioritize targeting objects predicted to move out of a field of view of a prediction sensor or a targeting sensor or out of range of an implement. Alternatively or in addition, a scheduling module 445 may prioritize targeting objects identified or located with high confidence. Alternatively or in addition, a scheduling module 445 may prioritize targeting objects with short activation times. In some embodiments, a scheduling module 445 may prioritize targeting objects based on a user's preferred parameters”).
Regarding claim 22, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches comprising one or more processors configured to determine a type of the agricultural object based on one or more received images of the agricultural objects, and is configured to determine whether or not to treat the agricultural object (Stark; ¶ 0078, lines 1-21, “FIG. 9A is a flow diagram illustrating a method 900 of autonomously thinning crops, according to example embodiments of the present disclosure. Method 900 may begin at step 910. At step 910, an image of a crop field containing crops is received [e.g., by an autonomous targeting system]. At step 915, the image is processed to identify individual crops. The individual crops identified may be a single type of crop [e.g., onions, peppers, strawberries, carrots, corn, soybeans, barley, oats, wheat, alfalfa, cotton, hay, tobacco, rice, sorghum, tomatoes, potatoes, grapes, rice, lettuce, beans, peas, sugar beets, or brassicas]. At step 920, locations and/or parameters are determined for each of the identified crops. Determined parameters may include one or more of plant spacing, plant health, plant size, or growth stage. At step 925, boundaries are generated around each of the identified crops. The boundary may be drawn based on the crop location, the parameters, or both. The boundary may be a geometric shape [e.g., a rectangle, an ellipse, or a polygon]. The boundary may closely match the contour of the crop. At step 930, target crops, corresponding to a subset of the identified crops, are selected for removal”).
Regarding claim 23, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 22, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the agricultural object of that is determined to be a weed type is to be treated by the application of the laser beam focal point at the agricultural object (Stark; ¶ 0033, “As used herein, “object” may refer to an item or a distinguishable area that may be observed, tracked, manipulated, or targeted. For example, an object may be a plant, such as a crop or a weed. In another example, an object may be a piece of debris. In another example, an object may be a distinguishable region or point on a surface, such as a marking or surface irregularity;” ¶ 0078, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 24, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 8, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein adjusting the diverging lens results in adjusting a distance from the redirection component to the focal point (Hu; concave lens 21; Fig. 2; ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 25, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the emitted laser is configured to remain collimated as the laser beam reflects off of the redirection component through the exit component (Yamaguchi; Fig. 56 shows laser remains collimated after passing through redirection component PBS 90).
Regarding claim 26, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the laser light source emits light at a wavelength of between 1 to 1000 nanometers (Mikesell; ¶ 0041), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose for a dwell time of about 100 milliseconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi such that the dwell time of about 100 milliseconds, in order to ensure destruction of the target. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 27, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1.
Mikesell discloses wherein the exit component comprises a solid material being a clear or opaque glass or plastic (¶ 0046, lines 27-29, “the laser escape window may comprise glass, quartz, fused silica, zinc selenide, a transparent polymer, or a combination thereof”).
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikesell (US 20210076662 A1), in view of Hu (CN 105994226 A), Stark (US 20240268246 A1), and Yamaguchi (US 5513201 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bellar (EP 0154279 A2).
Regarding claim 2, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1.
Mikesell discloses further comprising: the enclosure having inner walls, wherein the enclosure is configured to absorb laser light internally by the inner walls, (¶ 0020, lines 1-6; ¶ 0046, lines 12-15, “The optical elements may be surrounded by the enclosure. In some embodiments, the enclosure is sealed to prevent dust, debris, water, or any combination thereof from contacting the optical elements”).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose a first plurality of motors configured to shift the first lens; and a second plurality of motors configured to shift the second lens; wherein the first lens is laterally moveable within the enclosure via the first plurality of motors; wherein the second lens is laterally moveable with the enclosure via the second plurality of motors.
Bellar is in the field of modular laser components and teaches a first motor configured to shift the first lens (motor 28; Fig. 1); and a second motor configured to shift the second lens (motor 33; Fig. 1); wherein the first lens is laterally moveable within the enclosure via the first motor (Fig. 1 shows L1 is laterally moveable along its beam axis via motor 28); wherein the second lens is laterally moveable with the enclosure via the second motor (Fig. 1 shows L2 is laterally moveable along its beam axis via motor 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of modular laser components before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi to include a first motor configured to shift the first lens; and a second motor configured to shift the second lens; wherein the first lens is laterally moveable within the enclosure via the first motor; wherein the second lens is laterally moveable with the enclosure via the second motor, as taught by the motor configuration of Bellar. The motors would allow for improved adjustment of the lenses, which would further improve beam focusing. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to duplicate each of the first and second motors of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, Yamaguchi, and Bellar, such that a first plurality of motors are configured to shift the first lens; and a second plurality of motors are configured to shift the second lens wherein the first lens is laterally moveable within the enclosure via the first plurality of motors wherein the second lens is laterally moveable with the enclosure via the second plurality of motors, in order to improve performance. Additionally, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 3, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, Yamaguchi, and Bellar discloses the device of claim 2, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the first lens is configured to shift frontwards and backward in the enclosure over the lateral range (Bellar; Fig. 1 shows L1 is laterally moveable frontwards and backward along its beam axis via motor 28); wherein the second lens is configured to shift frontwards and backwards in the enclosure over the lateral range (Bellar; Fig. 1 shows L2 is laterally moveable frontwards and backward along its beam axis via motor 33).
Regarding claim 4, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, Yamaguchi, and Bellar discloses the device of claim 2, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the laser light source, the redirection component, the first plurality of motors and the second plurality of motors (Bellar; Figs. 5 and 6 show first 96 and second 106 motors are within the enclosure of the scanning device 80) and the at least one safety component are all located within the enclosure and the exit component is located along a surface of the enclosure (Mikesell; ¶ 0020, lines 1-6, “In some aspects, the optical control module is enclosed in an enclosure, the enclosure comprising an escape window capable of transmitting the emission and the visible light and positioned in the optical path between the first reflective element and the surface. In some aspects, the optical control module is fully enclosed in the enclosure;” ¶ 0046, lines 12-15, “The optical elements may be surrounded by the enclosure. In some embodiments, the enclosure is sealed to prevent dust, debris, water, or any combination thereof from contacting the optical elements”).
Regarding claim 9, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 8, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the diverging lens is adjustable such that adjusting the diverging lens results in adjusting the distance from the redirection component to the focal point.
Bellar teaches wherein the diverging lens is adjustable such that adjusting the diverging lens results in adjusting the distance from the redirection component to the focal point (Fig. 1 shows L1 and carriage 27 are moveable such that the distance from the redirection component of mirror 30 to the focal point 35 is adjusted via motor 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of modular laser components before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi such that the diverging lens is adjustable such that adjusting the diverging lens results in adjusting the distance from the redirection component to the focal point, as taught by the motor configuration of Bellar. The motors would allow for improved adjustment of the lenses, which would further improve beam focusing. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, Yamaguchi, and Bellar discloses the device of claim 9, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein adjusting the diverging lens involves moving the diverging lens closer to or farther away from the converging lens (Hu; ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 11, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, Yamaguchi, and Bellar discloses the device of claim 9, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein adjusting the diverging lens involves changing the shape of the diverging lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Bellar such that adjusting the diverging lens involves changing the shape of the diverging lens, in order to tailor the laser beam characteristics to specific applications. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikesell (US 20210076662 A1), in view of Hu (CN 105994226 A), Stark (US 20240268246 A1), and Yamaguchi (US 5513201 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Marka et al. (US 20120032096 A1, previously cited by Examiner 05/18/2026), hereinafter Marka.
Regarding claim 28, Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the exit component comprises a shutter configured to enlarge and contract a size of an exit opening of the exit component.
Marka is in the field of modular laser components and teaches a shutter configured to enlarge and contract a size of an exit opening of the exit component (¶ 0030, lines 1-9, “The optical shaping component 116 includes one or more optical couplers for affecting the location, size, shape, intensity profile, pulse profile, spectral profile or duration of an optical barrier. An optical coupler is any combination of components known in the art that are used to direct and control an optical beam, such as free space, vacuum, lenses, mirrors, beam splitters, wave plates, optical fibers, shutters, apertures, linear and nonlinear optical elements, and any other devices and methods that are used to control light”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of modular laser components before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mikesell in view of Hu, Stark, and Yamaguchi to include a shutter configured to enlarge and contract a size of an exit opening of the exit component, as taught by the shutter of Marka. The shutter would further control light, which would further improve beam focusing. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but do not contain arguments pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions or arguments discussing how the claims avoid or distinguish from the teachings of the applied references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Redden, US 20150027044 A1, discusses a system and method for plant treatment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights