Francois FeugierDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 31, 20212021001236 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/357,449 05/09/2014 Francois Gabriel Feugier 20721.0001USWO 2295 52835 7590 08/31/2021 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683 EXAMINER BURGESS, MARC R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOMail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANCOIS GABRIEL FEUGIER Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 24, 27, 30, and 35, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 See Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Francois Gabriel FEUGIER.” Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2–10, 13, 16, 17, 19–23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31–34, and 36 have been cancelled, while claim 14 has been withdrawn. See Amendment dated April 22, 2020. Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to pest control system, pest control method and pest control program for controlling pests in a farm such as a green house or a vertical farm.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claim 1 and method claim 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A pest control system, comprising: a self-propelled moving patrol device for patrolling an area of crop plants to control pests; and a control device, wherein said self-propelled moving patrol device is configured to move amongst the crop plants, and said self- propelled moving patrol device includes: a detection beam emitter for emitting a detection beam for detecting said pests, a reflected signal receptor for receiving a reflected signal reflected from an object irradiated with said detection beam, a destruction beam emitter for emitting a destruction beam at said pests for destroying said pests upon detecting said pests, and a low intensity guiding laser, wherein said reflected signal receptor is a full/multispectral imaging camera configured to film the focus of said low intensity guiding laser and a target of the destruction beam emitter; and wherein said control device includes: a pest detecting means arranged to detect said pests by comparing a reflected data obtained from said reflected signal with a signature data including: a signature of target pests stored in a signature data storage means, and one or more signature data of useful organisms, crop plants, damaged pests by said destruction beam, and symptoms of infestation; and a targeting means for aiming a destruction beam at said pests for destroying said pests upon detecting said pests, Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 3 wherein said targeting means is configured to move the focus of said low intensity guiding laser filmed by said full/multispectral imaging camera to coincide with said target of the destruction beam emitter, the coincidence being detected by said full/multispectral imaging camera. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Hall, III (“Hall”) US 4,015,366 Apr. 5, 1977 Woodbury et al. (“Woodbury”) US 2003/0148393 A1 Aug. 7, 2003 Guice et al. (“Guice”) US 6,653,971 B1 Nov. 25, 2003 Silverbrook et al. (“Silverbrook”) US 2004/0252025 A1 Dec. 16, 2004 Koselka et al. (“Koselka”) US 2006/0213167 A1 Sept. 28, 2006 Muhammed et al. (“Muhammed”) US 2008/0123097 A1 May 29, 2008 Squire et al. (“Squire”) US 7,441,367 B2 Oct. 28, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guice, Hall or Muhammed, and Squire or Koselka. Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guice, Hall or Muhammed, Squire or Koselka, and Silverbrook. Claim 30 is also rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guice, Hall or Muhammed, and Woodbury. Claim 35 is also rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guice, Hall or Muhammed, Koselka, and Squire. Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 4 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, and 35 as unpatentable over Guice, Hall or Muhammed, and Squire or Koselka Appellant argues all these claims together by focusing on claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5 (“claims 11, 12, [] 15, 18, [] 30 and 35 stand or fall with claim 1”), 10 (“[f]or at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentable over Guice, Squire, Koselka, Hall and Muhammed”). We select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). As stated succinctly by the Examiner, “[t]here are only two features that are not taught by Guice.” Ans. 7. The two features are (a) “that the patrol device is self-propelled,” and (b) “that said reflected signal receptor is a full/multispectral imaging camera.” Non-Final Act. 8, 9; see also Ans. 7, 8. The Examiner relies on either Squire or Koselka for the former and on either Hall or Muhammed for the latter, while also providing reasons for their combination. See Non-Final Act. 8–10; see also Ans. 8 (“Squire and Koselka are alternatives, as are Hall and Muhammed.”). Appellant disagrees stating that it is not accurate for the Examiner to assert “that Guice discloses a movable patrol device.” Appeal Br. 6. “Guice teaches away from the element 101/poles 6 being moveable.” Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 9 (“rendering the Guice system mobile is contrary to the teachings of Guice and would destroy the function of Guice”). The Examiner explains that Guice’s “entire system can be moved if desired.” Ans. 9. The Examiner likens it to a circus tent having “poles driven into the ground” but which can be “disassembled from one location, transported, and reassembled at another.” Ans. 9. However, more importantly, the Examiner states that “the newly-added self-propelled Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 5 features are taught by Squire or Koselka.” Ans. 9; see also Non-Final Act. 8. Indeed, both Squire and Koselka disclose a self-propelled patrol device. Squire teaches “robotic means [that] comprise[] a mobile robot and means for navigating the robotic means” (Squire Abstract) while Koselka’s Abstract teaches use of a “robot [that] moves through a field.” Further, Squire is directed to use in agriculture for “removing pests” (Squire Abstract) and Koselka is directed to “managing of agricultural crops” (Koselka Abstract). The Examiner’s reason for combining Guice’s more stationary pole-mount system with the mobile robotic systems of either Squire or Koselka is “in order to cover a much larger area with fewer patrol devices.” Non-Final Act. 8. In view of the Examiner’s reasoning concerning a desire to cover more ground, Appellant’s contention about Guice not being mobile is not persuasive. See Appeal Br. 9 (“there is no rational basis [that a skilled person] would modify Guice to be used with a self-propelled moving patrol device”). To be clear, Appellant has not explain how the desire “to cover a much larger area with fewer patrol devices” lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a modification of Guice by incorporating the self-propelled robotic systems of Squire or Koselka into the teachings of Guice. See Non-Final Act. 8. Accordingly, this contention by Appellant is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant further contends that “Guice teaches against such movement” by employing pole-mounted cameras. Appeal Br. 9. However, the Examiner explains that “[n]othing in Guice indicates that detection/elimination unit 101 would not function in a mobile system.” Ans. 13. Appellant does not indicate where Guice criticizes, discredits, or Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 6 otherwise disparages Guice’s detectors/cameras being moveable via Squire’s or Koselka’s robotic system, for the reasons expressed. See Ans. 14. Appellant next disagrees with the Examiner regarding Squire’s teaching of controlling pests as the patrol device “moves amongst crop plants.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that Squire’s robot “is not used with crop plants and does not move amongst crop plants.” Appeal Br. 7. Instead, as per Appellant, Squire’s robot “is disclosed as moving along a perimeter of a residential lawn.”3 Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds that Appellant is “attacking references individually” because Squire is relied upon for teaching that “pests are then collected and/or exterminated by a mobile, autonomous robot (abstract)” while Guice is relied upon for disclosing “that the system is used to protect crop plants.” Ans. 9, 10; see also Guice Abstract (addressing the protection of “field crops”). Indeed, the Examiner relies on Guice, not Squire, for teaching the limitation regarding “crop plants.” Non-Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7, 10. Hence, Appellant’s focus on Squire on this point is indicative that Appellant is not arguing the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant also contends that “Squire is not analogous art” because it is not in the “same field of endeavor since . . . Squire is not used with crops.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further contends that “Squire is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor” which Appellant describes as “deploying a self-propelled moving patrol device.” Appeal Br. 10. 3 Squire teaches that its robotic system “enables extermination of pests within a localized area such as the edge of paths or lawns,” but Squire further explains that “the system of the invention prevents pest entry into a specified area” which is not necessarily limited to lawns only. Squire 4:11– 15. Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 7 Concerning the “pertinent” problem prong of the analogous art test, the Examiner explains that “Squire teaches a system in which ‘pests are collected and/or exterminated by a mobile, autonomous robot’ (abstract).” Ans. 10. As such, according to the Examiner, “[i]t is clear to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of Squire are relevant” not only to Guice, but also to the problem identified by Appellant above. Ans. 10. As such, there is no indication that Squire’s teaching would not have been pertinent to the problem faced by Appellant (i.e., mobility). Appellant further contends that Koselka fails to teach a patrol device employed “to control pests.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that Koselka discloses a robot “that can move among crop plants to detect disease and insect infestations,” but that “[t]he robot in Koselka is not a pest removal system that controls pests.” Appeal Br. 7, 8. Similar to the above regarding Squire, the Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Koselka for controlling pests, instead, the Examiner relies on Guice for this. See Non- Final Act. 7 (Guice discloses “patrolling an area of crop plants to control pests”); see also Ans. 7, 11. The Examiner relies on Koselka (and alternatively Squire) for teaching “agricultural pest detection/elimination systems that are self-propelled.” Ans. 8; see also id. at 10. Appellant does not dispute that Koselka teaches a self-propelled agricultural robot. Consequently, Appellant’s contention regarding Koselka is not persuasive the Examiner erred in relying on Koselka for teaching self-propulsion. When addressing Muhammed, Appellant disagrees that Muhammed teaches a multispectral camera “that is used to detect pests.” Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 10. This is because, Muhammed does not detect pests. Instead, Muhammed detects an appearance of the plants and based on Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 8 appearance assumes “that disease or pests are present.” Appeal Br. 8. As above, Appellant is arguing the art individually, and not as a combination, because the Examiner relied on Guice, not Muhammed, for the detection of pests. See Non-Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7, 11. As previously noted, Muhammed was relied on for teaching use of a “multispectral camera.” Non-Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 8, 11. When addressing Hall, Appellant contends, “[t]he type of camera system disclosed in Hall requires complete immobility of the filmed object to produce a multispectral image.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also contends that Hall’s camera “is therefore absolutely unable to detect and destroy pests while the system moves as required by the claimed system.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 10. We understand Appellant’s first statement as contending that the “filmed object” is to be immobile during imaging while Appellant’s latter statement is understood to pertain to Hall’s system remaining still during imaging. Regarding the former, Appellant understands that in Hall, the “filmed object” is an agricultural product (see Appeal Br. 8; Hall 7:45– 47) but, due to such effects as wind, rain, and the like, Hall’s “filmed object” will move. Thus, it is not understood how Hall’s “filmed object” can be said by Appellant to only be suitable for imaging if it is immobile. Regarding Appellant’s latter statement (i.e., the camera moving), the Examiner explains that nothing in claim 1 requires the system “to detect and destroy pests while the system moves – only that the system can detect/destroy pests and move.” Ans. 13. Indeed, claim 1 is silent as to whether or not the camera is to be immobile during imaging. As such, claim 1 can be understood to encompass either situation. Thus, assuming arguendo that Hall’s camera is unable to operate “while the system moves” Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 9 as per Appellant (Appeal Br. 9), Appellant does not explain how Hall’s camera would unsuitable when the camera does not move. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions regarding Hall are not indicative that the Examiner erred when relying thereon for teaching use of a “multispectral imaging camera” as recited. See Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 8, 12. In summation, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious in view of Guice and Hall or Muhammed, and also in view of Squire or Koselka. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, and 35. Appellant does not address the other rejections additionally relying on the teachings of Silverbrook (claims 24 and 27), Woodbury (claim 30), and both Koselka and Squire (claim 35). Lacking any reason why the Examiner’s rejections of these claims might be faulty, we likewise sustain their rejections. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, 35 103 Guice, Hall, Muhammed, Squire, Koselka 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 30, 35 24, 27 103 Guice, Hall, Muhammed, Squire, Koselka, Silverbrook 24, 27 30 103 Guice, Hall, Muhammed, Woodbury 30 35 103 Guice, Hall, Muhammed, Koselka, Squire 35 Appeal 2021-001236 Application 14/357,449 10 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 24, 27, 30, 35 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation