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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 9-13 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.
Claim 9 recites grammatical and antecedent basis issues.
Regarding claim 10, 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salnikov US 20160307448.
Regarding claim 1, Salnikov teaches an agricultural robotic system configured to move over a crop field (figure 1A), comprising:
a housing (305 figure 4A);
a balloon connected to the housing (balloon in figure 4A); and
a repositioning system connected to the housing (toolset 330 of figure 4A),
but does not specify wherein the repositioning system is configured to provide a propulsive force for the housing by pushing against the crop.
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 toolset 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, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the repositioning system includes at least an arm extending horizontally from the housing (the toolset embodiment of figure 7 shows at least a wheel axle portion that extends horizontally);
but does not specify two arms/toolsets.
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 two toolsets, in order to meet various particular farming requirements; since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 3, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 2, wherein each of the at least two arms include a rotating axle (figure 7), and one or more teeth connected to the rotating axle, wherein rotation of the rotating axle results in rotation of the one or more teeth (figure 7);
but does not specify the teeth to be in a curved paddle shape.
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 4, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 3, but does not specify wherein the arm includes carbon fiber material.
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 known material, in order to meet various design preferences; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 5, Salnikov 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, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the housing includes at least one tapered surface (seen in the top right view of figure 4A).
Regarding claim 7, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 6, wherein the housing is boat-shaped with at least two angled surfaces (seen in the top right view of figure 4A); but does not specify 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, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a processor, an energy storage system and a control unit (figure 10).
Regarding claim 9, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 2, wherein housing further includes a communication system enabling wireless communication between the control unit and a user (figure 10).
Regarding claim 10, Salnikov teaches a method of using an agricultural robotic system, the method comprising: obtaining an agricultural robotic system including
a housing, a control unit positioned within the housing, a balloon coupled to the housing, and a repositioning system coupled to the housing (see previous rejections),
the repositioning system including a motor (figure 7) and an arm configured to push against one or more plants in an agricultural field (see previous rejections);
inflating the balloon with a gas (figure 4A) that is less dense than air resulting in the agricultural robotic system hovering near the top of the plants in an agricultural field (figure 1A);
sending a signal from the control unit to the motor of the repositioning system; and rotating the arm of the repositioning system via the motor (summarized in figure 7),
wherein said rotating results in the arm pushing against a plant in the agricultural field (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 11, Salnikov teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the repositioning system includes at least two arms extending horizontally in opposite directions from the housing, said rotating the arm includes rotating the at least two arms, and said rotating results in the at least two arms pushing against one or more plants in the agricultural field (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 12, Salnikov teaches the method of claim 11, but does not specify wherein said rotating the at least two arms includes rotating the at least two arms in different directions.
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 function, in order to meet various farming requirements for various types of plants; 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 13, Salnikov teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said rotating the at least two arms includes rotating the at least two arms in the same direction (see claim 12 rejection).
Regarding claim 14, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 1, further comprising: communicating information between the control unit and a user (figure 10).
Regarding claim 15, Salnikov teaches an agricultural robotic system configured to move over a crop field (figure 1A), comprising: a housing (figure 4A); a balloon connected to the housing (figure 4A); and means for repositioning the housing (propellers 340 of figure 4A), wherein said means includes a member that touches and pushes against at least one plant in a crop field (see claim 1 rejection’s obviousness statement).
Regarding claim 16, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 15, wherein said means includes at least two rotating arms extending horizontally from the housing (figure 4A shows at least two propellers/rotating arms), each of the at least two arms including a member that touches and pushes against at least one plant in a crop field (see claim 1 rejection’s obviousness statement).
Regarding claim 17, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 16, but does not specify wherein said means includes: means for rotating the housing by rotating the at least two arms in opposite directions; and means for linearly moving the housing by rotating the at least two arms in the same direction.
However such functions are known for drone propellers. 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 meet various farming requirements for various types of plants; 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 18, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 16, wherein each of the at least two arms is curved (figure 4A shows each propeller blade as curved).
Regarding claim 19, Salnikov teaches the agricultural robotic system of claim 15, wherein the balloon is substantially Zeppelin shaped (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 20, Salnikov 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).
Conclusion
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