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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the location” in line 30. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a location.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement to maintain the focal point at or proximate the agricultural target object,” in lines 31-33. This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it recites positive method steps despite being of an apparatus claim. Examiner recommends revision to “wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is configured to be shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement to maintain the focal point at or proximate the agricultural target object.”
Dependent claims 2-11 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
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 and 5-8 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) and Stark et al. (US 20240268246 A1), hereinafter Stark.
Regarding claim 1, Mikesell discloses an agricultural treatment system (optical control system; Fig. 1A), comprising:
a laser light source located within the agricultural treatment system, 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 agricultural treatment system (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”);
an exit component located along the agricultural treatment system, wherein the exit component is configured to transition the laser beam from within the agricultural treatment system to outside of the agricultural treatment system and toward the agricultural target object (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 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 the location of the agricultural target object via one or more sensors, and wherein the first lens and/or the second lens is shifted laterally based on the tracked location during movement to maintain the focal point at or proximate 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 to maintain the focal point at or proximate 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 to maintain the focal point at or proximate 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 the location of the agricultural target object via one or more sensors (¶ 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, 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.
Regarding claim 5, Mikesell in view of Hu and Stark discloses the device of claim 1.
Mikesell discloses wherein the redirection component includes a mirror 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 and Stark 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 and Stark 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 and Stark 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).
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) and Stark (US 20240268246 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bellar (EP 0154279 A2).
Regarding claim 2, Mikesell in view of Hu and Stark discloses the device of claim 1.
Mikesell discloses further comprising: an enclosure, (¶ 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”).
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 and Stark Hu 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, 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, 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, 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 and Stark 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 and Stark 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, 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, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Stowe et al., US 20150075067 A1, discusses an unwanted plant removal system having a stabilization system.
Marka et al., US 20120032096 A1, discusses an optical barrier to pests.
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