Francois Feugier

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2021001236 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

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cancelled, while claim 14 has been withdrawn.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