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 .
Applicant is reminded that any amendments to the claims, specification and abstract must each be submitted as a separate document. The amended claim set filed under the Preliminary Amendment on 06/20/2025 cannot be submitted in the same document as the specification and abstract.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 16, “mor” should read –more--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 19 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 basis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, for claim 1, the limitation “this” in line 10 and throughout is unclear as to what “this” is referring to.
Also, the limitation “this individual plant” in line 11 is unclear because is it referring to a different individual plant than what was stated in line 6? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same individual plant and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “individual plant” in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ground" and “the plants” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cameras" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 19, the limitation “a plant treatment device” in line 3 is unclear because is it referring to a different plant treatment device than what was stated in line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same plant treatment device and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “plant treatment device” in claim 19.
Also, for claim 19, the limitation “this” in line 7 and throughout is unclear as to what “this” is referring to.
Also, claim 19 recites the limitation “the non-cultivated plant" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GILBERS (EP 3329773 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, GILBERS discloses a method for detecting and treating plants (2 and 19; [0013] and [0022]) by means of a plant treatment device (1), the method comprising:
providing the plant treatment device that comprises;
at least one camera module (18) and at least one treatment module (8, 12 and 13); and
an electronic control unit (9);
capturing at least one image of at least one or more individual plants (2, 19) by
the camera module (18),
after which, on the basis of the image of the at least one individual plant (7) and by stored plant information (20), a decision is made in the electronic control unit for each individual plant detected as to whether this is a useful plant (19) or a non-cultivated plant (2; [0011-0013] and [0025-0026] as the data base comprises data concerning vegetation that is not considered a weed), and wherein at least one item of position information is assigned to this individual plant ([0025]), after which for each non-cultivated plant detected, applying and/or spraying a liquid (7) onto the non-cultivated plant by at least one nozzle (12) of the treatment module ([0010-0016] and [0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 2, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the liquid comprises water at a temperature of at least 90°C ([0020] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the liquid additionally comprises a foam ([0019]), which is biodegradable ([0019]).
Regarding claim 4, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the position information about each individual plant detected comprises two-dimensional position information ([0015] as CCD cameras are 2D devices) and additional height information of the treatment module above the ground on which the plants stand ([0009] as the treatment module relies on the height information of the plant to open the nozzle).
Regarding claim 5, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the treatment module has a nozzle matrix (13, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plant treatment device detects movement information ([0056]) relative to the ground (3) by the camera module ([0056]) and/or by a satellite navigation system and/or an additional speed sensor and/or at least an inertial sensor.
Regarding claim 7, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plant treatment device has at least one active illumination unit (21A 21B) for the cameras (fig. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 8, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the camera module has two or three or more cameras (21A, 21B), which are arranged in particular side by side (figs. 5A-5B), wherein the cameras detect the plants in different wavelengths and/or spectra ([0015]).
Regarding claim 9, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the treatment module has additional nozzles for applying and/or spraying foam ([0015] and figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, GILBERS discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plant treatment device is arranged on a vehicle (4 and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, GILBERS discloses a plant treatment device comprising:
at least one camera module (18); and
at least one treatment module (8, 12 and 13); and
an electronic control unit (9);
the plant treatment device is designed to:
capture an image of a plant (2, 19 and [0025]);
decide whether the plant is a useful plant (19) or a non-cultivated plant (2; [0011-0013] and [0025-0026] as the data base comprises data concerning vegetation that is not considered a weed);
assign position information to the plant ([0025]); and
apply a liquid (7) onto the plant based on whether the plant is the non-cultivated plant ([0010-0016] and [0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 13, GILBERS discloses the device of claim 12, further comprising a mounting frame (5) attached to the treatment module (fig. 1 and [0022]) and the camera module (fig. 1 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, GILBERS discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the treatment module is positioned at a lower height than the camera module (fig. 1 as 12 of the treatment module is positioned at a lower height than the camera module 18).
Regarding claim 16, GILBERS discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the liquid is sprayed at a temperature exceeding 100 degrees Celsius ([0020] as the liquid can be above 95 degrees Celsius) and at a pressure of more than 1 bar (“The pressure of the water leaving the nozzles may be atmospheric of close to atmospheric, or can be above atmospheric, especially pressurized.” Of [0051] as the of the liquid can be above atmospheric pressure, and it is known that the standard atmospheric pressure is 1.01325 bar).
Regarding claim 17, GILBERS discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the non-cultivated plant is a weed (2 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, GILBERS discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the plant is of a crop row (19 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, GILBERS discloses a method for detecting and treating plants (2 and 19; [0013] and [0022]) by means of a plant treatment device (1), the method comprising:
providing a plant treatment device having a camera module (18), a treatment module (8, 12 and 13), and an electronic control unit (9);
capturing at least one image of at least one or more individual plants (2, 19) by the camera module (18), after which, on the basis of the image of the at least one individual plant and by stored plant information (20), deciding whether this is a useful plant (19) or a weed (2) by the electronic control unit ([0011-0013] and [0025-0026] as the data base comprises data concerning vegetation that is not considered a weed); and applying a high temperature liquid (7) at a temperature of at least 90 degrees Celsius ([0020] and [0023]) onto the non-cultivated plant by at least one nozzle (12) of the treatment module ([0010-0016] and [0023-0025]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILBERS as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calleija (US 20200296875 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, GILBERS teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, but is silent wherein the treatment module has at least one chopping device, which processes the soil beside a detected plant row mechanically, in particular chops and/or scrapes.
Calleija teaches wherein the treatment module (10) has at least one chopping device, which processes the soil beside a detected plant row mechanically (fig. 5 and [0097]), in particular chops and/or scrapes ([0025] as the tine severs the stems of the weeds).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the treatment module has at least one chopping device, which processes the soil beside a detected plant row mechanically, in particular chops and/or scrapes as taught by Calleija into the method of GILBERS in order to sever the stems of the weeds ([0025] of Calleija).
Claim(s) 15 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILBERS as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 15, GILBERS teaches the device of claim 12, but is silent wherein the treatment device is positioned at a height of about 8 cm and the camera module is positioned at a height of between 0.08 meter and 1 meter.
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 GILBERS to be wherein the treatment device is positioned at a height of about 8 cm and the camera module is positioned at a height of between 0.08 meter and 1 meter in order to ensure a proper amount of distance to prevent the camera module from getting dirty from the ground and the treatment device, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GERMAIN (US 20230206627 A1) teaches a method for detecting and treating plants.
Albert (US 20180160673 A1) teaches a method for detecting and treating plants.
Tanner (US 10681905 B2) teaches a method for detecting and treating plants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights