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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 1, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmby US 20180201355.
Regarding claim 1, Palmby teaches an agricultural robotic system configured to move over crops in a field, comprising:
a housing (14 of figure 7);
a balloon connected to the housing (title and figure 7); and
a repositioning member connected to the housing (62 of figure 7),
wherein, when the housing is positioned above the crops (it is inherent that a hot air balloon will be positioned above crops at some point in flight), the repositioning member moves in relation to the housing (summarized in figure 5);
but does not specify the repositioning member contacting crops, pushes against the crops when contacting the crops, and moves the housing in relation to the field when the repositioning member pushes against the crops.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the repositioning member in such a manor, in order to provide an emergency maneuver with existing elements; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the repositioning system includes at least two arms extending horizontally from the housing (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the balloon is substantially Zeppelin shaped.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to meet various design preferences; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant describes such a shape as merely optional so is clearly not critical towards the novelty of applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 6, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the housing includes at least one tapered surface (such as the corners as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 6, but does not specify wherein the housing is boat-shaped with at least two angled surfaces positioned to be closer together at the bottom of the housing than at the top of the housing and the two angled surfaces meeting to form a wedge-like bow.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to meet various design preferences; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a processor, an energy storage system and a control unit (paragraph 0025 and figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 2, but does not specify wherein housing further includes a communication system enabling wireless communication between the control unit and a user.
However, wireless communication control is a generally well known technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such functions, in order to enable emergency intervention by a ground controller, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Palmby teaches an agricultural robotic system configured to move over a crop field, comprising: a housing; a balloon connected to the housing; and means for moving the housing in relation to the crop field, wherein said means includes a member that touches and pushes against at least one plant in a crop field (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 16, Palmby teaches he agricultural robotic system of claim 15, wherein said means includes at least two rotating arms extending horizontally from the housing, each of the at least two arms including a member that touches and pushes against at least one plant in a crop field (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 18, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 16, but does not specify wherein each of the at least two arms is curved.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the arms with curved rod shapes, in order to simply meet design preferences, etc.
Regarding claim 19, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 15, wherein the balloon is substantially Zeppelin shaped (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 20, Palmby teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 15, wherein the housing is boat-shaped with at least two angled surfaces positioned to be closer together at the bottom of the housing than at the top of the housing and the two angled surfaces meeting to form a wedge-like bow (see previous rejections).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the combination of limitations recited in claims 1-3; particularly, the paddles connected to the rotating axles, in combination with the remaining build up of elements, etc.
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the method steps recited in claim 10; particularly, contacting the plants with the arms resulting in pushing the body, etc.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the combination of limitations recited in claims 15-17; particularly, the means for linearly moving the housing by rotating the at least two arms in the same direction, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered and are addressed in the updated rejections above.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights