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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al, US Patent No. 5,123,730, in view of Pickett et al, CA 2413616.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Holmes et al disclose an apparatus for optical remote wind sensing comprising: a laser transmitter adapted to illuminate a target with a laser through an atmosphere laser 12 uses a coherent light source to remote target, stating that laser diodes may be used); a receiver comprising a single photodiode and adapted to analyze a return path of the laser through the atmosphere, the receiver receiving modulated scattered laser radiation due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere (the target scatters the transmitted beam and the scattered beam returns to a receiver 60, producing a scintillation pattern); and the device adapted to compare intensities of the received modulated scattered laser radiation from the receiver and measures a crosswind profile along a path to the target to determine crosswinds determining a path-averaged vector crosswind and wind speed normal to the transmitted beam path and stating that only one detector is needed to measure the wind magnitude). (See Figs 1-3; col. 3-4).
Holmes et al fails to disclose an atmosphere over a field of crops for accurate fertilizer and pesticide dispersion.
Pickett et al disclose an automatic wind-drift compensation system for agricultural sprayers comprising: a control unit adapted to receive input data including wind speed and direction, vehicle speed and direction, and desired spray overlap; the control unit is programmed with a set of instructions for processing the data and generating output data; the output data facilitates steering of the sprayer through the field to achieve the desired spray overlap (see page 4).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to combine the teachings of Holmes et al and Pickett et al for applying the system to agricultural spraying, including spraying of soil nutrients, insecticides and pesticides. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising another receiver spaced apart from the receiver at a particular distance (Holmes et al teaches using two or more detectors for determining wind direction and are horizontally separate, col. 3, line 44+).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the single photodiode is coupled with optics (only a single detector is needed to measure the wind magnitude; col. 4, line 2+ of Holmes et al).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Homes et al and Pickett et al fail to disclose wherein the optics further comprise micro optics coupled with diaphragms that selectively permit illumination of different parts of the single photodiode. However, coupling micro optics with diaphragms is commonly used for light manipulation trough adjustable apertures for image quality and for image focusing. Therefore, it would have been for an ordinary artisan to modify the teachings of Holmes et al and Pickett et al in order to effectively analyze the field of crops through better imaging and greater focus. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, with respect to the specific type of sensor (wherein the single photodiode is a quadrant photodetector), such limitations is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements. Furthermore, it is known that quadrant photodetectors provide precise detection of the position and movement of light. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Holmes et al in conjunction with Pickett et al.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the receiver further comprises collection optics used to optically filter or isolate, using at least one of polarization or diffraction techniques, the modulated scattered laser radiation in the atmosphere (Holmes et al, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the laser transmitter is one of a light emitting diode (LED), a super-luminescent diode (SLED), a liquid laser, a gas laser, or a solid laser (a Co2 laser 12 is used and disclose laser diode may be used, Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 12-13, wherein the laser transmitter is adapted to emit a laser of differing power, frequency, or optical property (col. 3, lines 1-19).
Regarding claims 9, 14, and 16-17, further comprising: a memory configured to hold the extracted crosswind profile; and a processor interoperable coupled to the memory and configured to calculate a ballistic solution using the extracted crosswind profile (the computer 100 has memory to hold the extracted cross wind for processing and measuring and calculating the characteristics of the cross wind, Fig. 3 of Homes et al).
Regarding claim 10, further comprising the processor configured to initiate transmission of data associated with the ballistic solution to a sighting device (the computer 100 has memory to hold the extracted cross wind for processing and measuring and calculating the characteristics of the cross wind, Fig. 3 of Homes et al).
Regarding claim 18, further comprising: determining that a particular scintillation pattern is moving; determining a direction-of-movement for the particular scintillation pattern; and determining a speed-of-movement for the particular scintillation pattern (col. 3, line 55+ of Holmes et al).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the determination that the particular scintillation pattern is moving is performed by a cross-covariance computation between two or more scintillation patterns (Fig. 1A, 1B, 4; col. 3, line 55+ of Holmes et al).
Regarding claim 20, further comprising providing a multi-axis scintillation pattern movement determination (Fig. 1A, 1B, 4; col. 3, line 55+ of Holmes et al).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,352,861 in view of Pickett et al, CA 2413616. For instance, in claim 21 of the current applicant and in the ‘861 Patent the applicant claims:
Application: No. 19/240,130
Patent No. 12,352,861
A device for optically measuring crosswind over a field of crops, comprising: a laser transmitter adapted to illuminate a target with a laser through an atmosphere; a receiver comprising a single photodiode and adapted to analyze a return path of the laser through the atmosphere, the receiver receiving modulated scattered laser radiation due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere; and the device adapted to compare intensities of the received modulated scattered laser radiation from the receiver and measures a crosswind profile along a path to the target to determine crosswinds over the field of crops for accurate fertilizer and pesticide dispersion.
A device for optically measuring crosswind for wind turbine rotor adjustment, comprising: a single physical photodiode representing a single pixel and adapted to analyze electromagnetic radiation traveling between the single physical photodiode and a target, wherein the single physical photodiode is mounted to a wind turbine, wherein the single physical photodiode is subdivided into a plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions, wherein each sub-pixel detection portion of the plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions simulates a separate physical photodetector, wherein each distinct sub-pixel detection portion of the plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions receives a scintillation pattern created by atmospheric eddies diffracting and refracting the electromagnetic radiation, and wherein, for each distinct sub-pixel detection portion, converting the scintillation pattern into a single data point measuring cumulative light intensity; and the device adapted to compare cumulative light intensities from each distinct sub-pixel detection portion and to generate, as a generated crosswind profile, a crosswind profile between the single physical photodiode and the target.
The claims of 861 Patent et al fail to disclose an atmosphere over a field of crops for accurate fertilizer and pesticide dispersion.
Pickett et al disclose an automatic wind-drift compensation system for agricultural sprayers comprising: a control unit adapted to receive input data including wind speed and direction, vehicle speed and direction, and desired spray overlap; the control unit is programmed with a set of instructions for processing the data and generating output data; the output data facilitates steering of the sprayer through the field to achieve the desired spray overlap (see page 4).
In view of the teachings of Pickett, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan at the effective filing date of the application to modify the claims of 861 Patent for applying the system to agricultural spraying, including spraying of soil nutrients, insecticides and pesticides. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims in a first paten. IN re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. & 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on this ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 C>FR> &1.78(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 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.
Remarks:
In response to the argument that the prior art fails to disclose an atmosphere over a field of crops for accurate fertilizer and pesticide dispersion. The new prior art, Pickett et al (CA 2413616) disclose an automatic wind-drift compensation system for agricultural sprayers comprising: a control unit adapted to receive input data including wind speed and direction, vehicle speed and direction, and desired spray overlap; the control unit is programmed with a set of instructions for processing the data and generating output data; the output data facilitates steering of the sprayer through the field to achieve the desired spray overlap (see page 4). The applicant’s argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 8:00-8:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pham Thomas can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
DS
/DANIEL ST CYR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights