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 § 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 “wherein the first lens directs the laser beam to the second lens, and the second lens directs the laser beam to the redirection component; wherein the redirection component directs the laser beam through the exit component; and wherein shifting the first lens over a lateral range and/or shifting the second lens over another lateral range, focuses the laser beam to a focal point at a location after the beam is directed by the redirection component,” in lines 21-27. 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 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; wherein the redirection component is configured to direct the laser beam through the exit 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.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the later range” in line 7. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “the lateral range.”
Dependent claims 2 and 4-11 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).
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 directs the laser beam through the exit component (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 directs the laser beam to the second lens, and the second lens directs the laser beam to the redirection component; wherein the redirection component directs the laser beam through the exit 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.
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).
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 directs the laser beam to the second lens, and the second lens directs the laser beam to the redirection component; wherein the redirection component directs the laser beam through the exit 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, 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.
Regarding claim 5, Mikesell in view of Hu 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 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 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 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), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bellar (EP 0154279 A2).
Regarding claim 2, Mikesell in view of Hu 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 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 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 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 later 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 13 and 14 that “The Examiner is just making an unsupported conclusion, based on hindsight of Applicant's claimed invention. Here the motivation to combine is inadequate and/or conclusory to support an obviousness determination See Innogenetics, N. V v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also, Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Office Action is merely specifically relying on a secondary reference to fill a gap in the claims not disclosed or suggested by the primary reference. The Office Action has not properly identified why a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have made the prior art combination with a reasonable expectation of success. None of the references suggest this motivation. The asserted motivation to combine is conclusory and unsupported by any findings of fact,” the Examiner recognizes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to provide the device of Mikesell with the optical configuration of Hu exists in Hu, as Hu provides a clear motivation in ¶ 0032 which details that the optical configuration increases energy concentration at the target, which improves targeting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of laser treatment targeting small objects to provide the device of Mikesell with the optical configuration of Hu without relying on hindsight reasoning.
Regarding the argument on page 14 that “One skilled in the art would not have combined Hu with Mikesell due to the complexity of the Mikesell laser system and its central beam combiner. Cleary upon review of Mikesell FIG. 1B (which does not even use lenses for beam convergence/divergence), there is not any location in the system to just add the Hu optical configuration system. The additional of the Hu optical configuration would render the Mikesell laser system inoperable for its intended purpose. The Examiner is only making an unsupported general conclusion without any underlying teaching in either Mikesell or Hu,” the Examiner submits that Fig. 1B shows space between both the emitter 101 and the beam combining element 103 as well as the beam combining element 103 and the reflective element 105 along the beam path 102 for provision of the additional optical elements of Hu. Additionally, the remainder of the above arguments are mere conclusory statements which provide no evidence or substantive argument for why “the addition of the Hu optical configuration would render the Mikesell laser system inoperable for its intended purpose.”
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been 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.
Minoura et al., US 4253724 A, discusses a recording optical system.
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