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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/22/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 5/22/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 28-31 remain withdrawn as drawn to a non-elected inventive group.
Claims 7-10, 21-22, 24-28, 32, and 34-36 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
The claims 26 and 34 objections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The invocation of 112(f) for claim 25 along with the rejections of claim 25 under 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn as a result of applicant’s amendment to the claim. The claim will no longer be consider to invoke a 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of applicant’s amendments and arguments. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – maintained/modified
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-10, 21-22, 24-28, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A claim fails to satisfy the statutory requirement and is thus invalid for indefiniteness if its language, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, “fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). In Nautilus, the Supreme Court expressly rejected that “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction” standard. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124. Rather, the Court “h[e]ld that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. The Court explained further: “[i]t cannot be sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s claim; the definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application, not that of a court viewing matters post hoc.” Id. at 2130. “A patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them. Notably a claim is indefinite if its language “might mean several different things and no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” Id. At 2130 n.8. Although the Court recognized that “[s]ome modicum of uncertainty” may be tolerated, id. at 2128, the patent and prosecution history must disclose a single known approach or establish that, where multiple known approaches exist, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know which approach to select. See Teva, 789 F.3d at 1341, 1344–45 (holding claim indefinite where molecular weight could be measured three different ways and would yield different results and the patent and prosecution history did not provide guidance as to which measure to use).
Claims 7 and 32 (and all claims dependent therefrom) recite the steps of “determining different irrigation triggering decisions for soil water conditions under different atmospheric aridity conditions wherein the irrigation triggering decisions take into account plant physiological regulations” wherein the step has been deemed as vague and indefinite. The instant claims are directed to a method and system for implementing the method claims and not result claims. Therefore, the steps are required to define how the method steps end in the recited results. For example, the claims are required to define how the irrigation triggering decision is determined taking into account plant physiology regulations and any other such information, such as what algorithm or specific steps are used for triggering an irrigation event. Additionally, it is unclear as to how the different conditions under different atmospheric aridity conditions impact how the step takes into account the plant physiology regulations and any other data. The steps are clear with regards to the results they produce, which is to trigger an irrigation event, but are not clear as to exactly how they are produced. There is no algorithm or prose equivalent recited for performing said determinations. Without defining each of the steps it is not possible to have a clear measure of what applicant’s regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The lacking of properly defined method steps further makes the scope of the claim unclear so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. With regards to the limitation of “wherein the irrigation triggering decisions take into account plant physiology regulations” they appear to fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of said limitation. It is not clear as to what other information would be used for making said determinations other than plant physiology regulations. Additionally, it is unclear as to what exactly “take into account” has on said determining step. For purposes of examination any method that involves plant physiology regulations for use in determining an irrigation event will be considered to read on the instant limitation. As it is unclear as to what other types of information may be used or how even the plant physiology regulation data is taken into account for said determining step, it appears to fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of said step. Additionally, it remains vague and indefinite as to how the step is carried out. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments cure the deficiencies of said claims under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant arguments are not found persuasive as said claims continue have similar issues with regards to how the step of determining different irrigation triggering decisions is carried out as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 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 Jason Sims, whose telephone number is (571)-272-7540.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached via telephone (571)-272-4390.
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the Central PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central PTO Fax Center number 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).
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
