DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/17/2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 17/760,301 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Claim Objections
In view of the foregoing amendments claim objection(s) previously set forth are withdrawn. Examiner notes however that Claim 1 as amended, at line 13, recites “oil sensors and actuators” that appears a typographical error intended to read “soil sensors and actuators”.
Response to 35 USC § 112 Rejections
In view of the foregoing amendments striking various instances of exemplary language, and correcting antecedents, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn but only in part. Claim 1 as amended raises new issues with respect to clarity/indefiniteness as identified in the rejections that follow. Claim 10 still features indefinite exemplary language (2173.05(d)).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically Applicant’s remarks (at page 10 of 12) assert that Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) (with corresponding WO2018049189A1 applicable under 102(a)(1)) fails to disclose “a lower body comprising a volume control chamber having a volume control chamber methane sensor” as now recited by claim 1 as amended, and thereby impacting the method of claim 13 with reference to the system of claim 1, i.e. the process/method in which the product/system of claim 1 is used (see MPEP §§ 806.05(h) Product and Process of Using, and 806.05(e) Process and Apparatus for Its Practice; Examiner noting that 806.05(e) in particular may be more pertinent/relevant, given the instant Application’s classification and routing). Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant subsequently argues at page 11 of 12 that Shakoor as proposed in the rejection(s) of claims 5-6, fails to teach/suggest limitations as now required, less for the case of claim 1, but more corresponding to those as presented in claim 3 as now amended. In other words, that Byron does not cure the deficiency in Shakoor because Byron falls silent regarding any differential measure between its atmospheric and soil methane sensors (not required for claim 1), and modifying Shakoor’s soil sensor 48/208 to be a soil methane sensor as taught/suggested by Byron, would not provide for a methane sensor disposed within a volume control chamber (e.g. within Shakoor’s bottom module 22 as illustrated in Shakoor Fig. 5, 9, etc.) – despite the proposed modification as presented in the rejection of claim 6, to house 48/208 within 22 of Shakoor.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination previously provided in the rejection of claim 6 (now cancelled) (Non-Final Office Action at pages 13-14) fully addresses the independent claim(s) as amended.
The Non-Final Office Action at page 9, in the rejection of previously presented claim 3, identifies the manner in which Shakoor discloses a lower body equivalent comprising a volume control chamber, which given Applicant’s remarks does not appear to be at issue. Applicant’s remarks appear to agree that one or more of Shakoor’s sensors e.g. 26 may be housed within interior chambers, but fail to establish why then the proposed modification (modifying Shakoor 48/208 to be a soil methane sensor in view of Byron, and further modification such that 48/208 is housed within 22 – under that same rationale that Shakoor provides other components within 22 for protective benefit) would not result in a “volume control chamber methane sensor” equivalent. To any implied assertion that Shakoor’s interior chambers of 22 are not ‘volume control chambers’, Examiner would respectfully disagree and assert the interior portions of all of Shakoor’s modules 22 are ‘volume control chambers’, because they comprise a hollow interior chamber/portion and they serve the function of acquiring a desired device height/ volume. The rejection of claim 5 as previously presented conceded that Shakoor fails to disclose that the ‘soil sensor’ (310 equivalent being 26 and 48/208 more specifically of Shakoor) is explicitly used for the purposes of detecting methane (Applicant’s 314), in view of e.g. [0035] of Shakoor describing soil probe 208 as being “for measuring soil conditions such as water content, soil nutrients, and soil pH”. It was also previously asserted that the teachings of Byron, Ill et al. (US 20170105373 A1) cured this deficiency in evidencing the obvious nature of soil sensors including a methane sensor ([0030] “A soil sensor can measure any one or more of measures soil moisture, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, methane, oxygen, and/or nitrate (i.e., with respect to the soil)”). The proposed combination modifies Shakoor’s sensors 26 and 208 in particular, to include that/those housed and/or generally house-able in a lower body volume control chamber equivalent (housed with such a ground proximity so as to enable the measurement of soil/ground associated information), to implement a soil methane sensor as disclosed in Byron – in view of that rationale as previously presented at page 13 of the Non-Final Office Action. It should be noted that Byron discloses two distinct methane sensors (which may be missed upon cursory reading of [0028-0030]). Byron [0030] reproduced herein:
PNG
media_image3.png
474
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s remarks suggest that Shakoor discloses an atmospheric methane sensor housed proximate an upper body portion (remarks at page 10 ‘Shakoor only measures the environmental methane in the upper portion of their system’). Byron, in explicitly disclosing both of distinct atmospheric and soil methane sensors, at least suggests (see also Byron [0028] suggesting distinct measures for each ‘environment’ root zone vs canopy), and POSITA would similarly recognize, that utilizing both would allow for a measure of exchange/flux between the two domains, in addition to utilizing the atmospheric as a level-set/ baseline/background measure for subtraction, to isolate soil/ground associated methane, potentially indicative of e.g. microbes in the soil/soil health. See for example Xiao et al. “A Flux-Gradient System for Simultaneous Measurement of the CH4, CO2, and H2O Fluxes at a Lake−Air Interface” (2014), Burba et al. “A brief practical guide to eddy covariance flux measurements: principles and workflow examples for scientific and industrial applications” (2010), Keane “The development of novel automated technology to measure trace gas fluxes from agricultural systems” (see in particular pages 36-39 Sections 1.2 and 1.2.2 describing chamber methods and gradient techniques), etc., of the attached PTO-892. Applicant’s disclosure at [0036] appears to be similarly motivated, disclosing atmospheric methane sensor 114 distinct from ‘soil’ (as dubbed by Applicant’s original disclosure) methane sensor 314 (wherein 314 is housed within Applicant’s 21 so as to concern a ground/soil reading, differentiable from an atmospheric one) – but none of Applicant’s disclosure appears to suggest that the use of two of such sensors, and/or locating 314 within/proximate 21, are themselves novel characteristics. Why a person of ordinary skill in the art might be motivated to acquire atmospheric and soil methane measures is secondary however (nor does Applicant argue the rationale previously presented in the rejection of claim 14 specifically), to the manner in which the probe/sensor system modified by the proposed combination is arguably housed within/ proximate to an equivalent of Applicant’s 21, even if a probe portion of the sensor in question extends outside of the chamber/housing – particularly in view of Shakoor at [0035] “One of the modules, e.g. serving as the lowest arranged or base module, may specifically accommodate connections for the soil measuring devices such as a minirhizotron soil imager 48 or a soil moisture probe 208 for measuring soil conditions”. The modified sensor of the proposed combination is still proximate to the ground/soil (see Shakoor Fig. 5), and is still arguably housed, at least in part within (e.g. with portions protruding therefrom and components/elements remaining within) that lower-most volume/portion/module 22. Reference may be made to Shakoor’s Figures 1 and 5, and [0035], clearly illustrating 48 proximate to the lowermost volume control member, in recognition of the manner in which the proposed combination modifies 208/48 so as to acquire a methane measure.
PNG
media_image4.png
420
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Should Applicant insist that Shakoor is non-equivalent because 208/48 of Shakoor extends outside of module 22 (even if portions also remain within – i.e. the portions that 48/208 is/are necessarily connected to), the amended claim language simply requires the lower body to ‘have’ the sensor in question, and the terms/language “chamber methane sensor” are not disclosed ipsis verbis in Applicant’s Specification. In other words, if meeting written description requirements, the recited language as permissibly interpreted under BRI does not preclude/prevent portions of the sensor existing outside of the housing/chamber, and Applicant’s remarks do not specifically address that modification previously presented in the rejection of now cancelled claim 6 and/or that rationale presented.
Rationale for further modification so as to house Shakoor’s 48/208 within 22 was previously provided in the rejection of claim 6 – in view of that same teaching in Shakoor for providing components within e.g. interior 24 broadly – namely that doing so would protect the sensors in question from damage/loss particularly during transit and/or redeployment. This rationale does not rely upon any impermissible hindsight, because it takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
PNG
media_image5.png
510
1160
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner maintains that references of record as reasonably combined serve to teach/suggest the instant claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1, line 13, presents the apparent typographical error “oil sensors” that appears intended to read “soil sensors”.
Claim(s) 2, line 2, recites “wherein the lower body attached to an intermediate body that has one translation degree of freedom;”, that appears to be missing language “is” – “wherein the lower body is attached to…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 12, references three apparently distinct microcontrollers/controllers for which it is unclear what element(s) e.g. from Applicant’s Fig. 7, each of the ‘central embedded microcontroller’ and the ‘central microcontroller’ reference, as they are now set forth as distinct but they previously shared the same call number (100). Claim 1 at line 3 establishes “a central embedded microcontroller” previously assigned the ‘call number’ (100). Line 8 establishes basis for a potentially distinct (now given the ‘a’ language and striking that same call number 100) “a central microcontroller”, which as recited appears distinct from the ‘central embedded microcontroller’ (two ‘central’ microcontrollers are recited, one is embedded, one is not necessarily so – but the same call number 100 was previously assigned to both). There is also potential ambiguity regarding if the “base microcontroller” (300) is intended to be one of those recited in line 12 if for example the “central embedded microcontroller’’ and the “central microcontroller”, particularly given the previously common call number 100, are not actually distinct (e.g. if line 12 is intended to reference a sole instance of 100, embedded controller 200, and base microcontroller 300).
Claim 10 recites ambiguous language given its exemplary nature – i.e. “such as” leading to confusion over the intended scope of the claim(s) – see MPEP 2173.05(d) example (B) "material such as rock wool or asbestos" Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1949).
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-14 are similarly rejected because they inherit and fail to cure that/those ambiguities identified for the case of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) (corresponding WO2018049189A1 would also be applicable under 102(a)(1)), in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1).
As to claim 1, Shakoor discloses a system for phenotype characterization of agricultural crops ([0001-0002]) comprising:
at least one support device (Fig. 1, Fig. 9, [0023] “remote field controller and sensor 20 may comprise a plurality of modules 22 removably connected to each other to form an elongate body for the remote field controller and sensor. Each module 22 may comprise a tubular member with axial opposite ends upon which an adjoining module may be stacked to form the remote field controller and sensor … For instance, the module may have an aluminum cylindrical inner casing, which may be embedded in the PVC wall. Although not necessary, the module 22 may have a hollow interior 24 into which specific crop and environmental sensors 26 (FIG . 6) and other electronic equipment 28 (FIG . 6) may be housed”, etc.,) having a central embedded microcontroller (100)
connected to atmospheric sensors (110) located in an upper body (40), including an environmental sensors 26 and electronics 28 reside e.g. within modules/body/housing 22, wherein 28 includes a microcontroller e.g. a Raspberry Pi, [0025] “The hollow interior 24 of each module 22 may be sized to accommodate the electronics 28 and any other equipment needed to power the specific crop and environ mental sensors 26 incorporated into each module and may include space to house a battery or power source 44 (FIG . 6) for one or more modules. In addition to the crop and environmental sensors 26, the electronics and internal module equipment 28 may include computers, interface electronics, power supplies 44 and wireless transmitters. The crop and environmental sensors 26 may be configured for data collection of light, soil temperature and moisture, wind speed, atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity. The crop and environmental sensor 26 functions may be combined or separate. The electronics and other internal module equipment 28 may be configured to allow multiple and diverse sets of crop and environmental sensors 26 to be installed in the module and provide an integrated and flexible data collection and processing platform. For instance, the electronics and other internal module equipment 28 may be based upon an Internet of Things platform that allows fast and seamless connection of an environmental and crop sensor to the cloud via the internet. The platform may include a mobile software development kit that enables fast integration with other components , and easy development of software applications. The mobile / hub associated with the system serves as a gateway and communicates data from an environmental and crop sensor to the cloud platform. The cloud platform aggregates information and allows for processing of large amounts data. One embodiment of a computer may include a Raspberry PiTM developed by the Raspberry Pi Foundation”);
an embedded controller (200) configured to receive a signal from a multi-spectral camera (210) located on a distal end of an arm (41) (Figs. 1, 2, 4, etc., 28 receive(s) signals from and articulates imaging system 46 mounted/located on distal end of arm/boom 90, [0032] “The camera or imaging system 46 of the remote field controller and sensor 20,200 may be configured to provide imaging the canopy of the measured crops. The camera or imaging system 46 may be mounted on a boom or arm 90 that projects from the outer surface of the module 20,220. The arm 90 may be removably attachable to the outer surface of a module in the event imaging of the canopy is not desired in a particular application. The arm 90 may be articulated, telescopic, and/or otherwise adjustable along its length to allow customization of its length as desired in a particular application. The camera or imaging system 46 may be configured to provide hemispherical imaging of the canopy of the measured crops. The camera or imaging system 46 may include a fish-eye lens for hemispherical canopy photography or imaging. The camera or imaging system 46 may include infra-red or near infra-red imaging device or a CCD device, which may prove useful in determining water retention or loss in the canopy of the measured crops … In this configuration, the arms 90 may be configured to allow the imaging of the canopy between the two arms 90 , thereby providing a more detailed analysis of canopy architecture, leaf angles, lead distribution, canopy geometry and openness, and leave area indices”, [0036], [0038] “Additional room on the camera arm 90 may accommodate additional sensors, e.g., laser proximity sensor / LIDAR, ultrasound, multispectral and hyperspectral sensors”);
a central microcontroller (100) connected to a base microcontroller (300) configured to receive signals from soil sensors (310) (Fig. 11 each module 22 (base/bottom, central/intermediate and top) houses its own 28, [0031], [0035] “One of the modules, e.g. serving as the lowest arranged or base module, may specifically accommodate connections for the soil measuring devices such as a minirhizotron soil imager 48 or a soil moisture probe 208 for measuring soil conditions”, [0039] “probes 120 may be configured to measure soil moisture, soil pH, soil temperature and soil nutrient composition. The satellite probes 120 may be powered by an on-board battery. The satellite probes 120 may be configured to send out soil related information through low energy waves 122 , for instance , via Z-Wave , Bluetooth Low Energy, etc. The satellite probes 120 may be configured to operate under the soil beneath ground level. The satellite probes 120 may be configured with onboard GPS to help users locate buried sensors at the end of the crop cycle. A remote field controller and sensor 20,200 positioned in proximity to the satellite probes 120 may be configured to collect data from its sensors and from the satellite soil probes in the field”);
a lower body (20) comprising a volume control chamber (21) (Fig. 8 in view of 42, [0024] “As shown in FIG. 8, the upper arranged module 22a may have a smaller diameter cylindrical surface 40 extending from one axial end and the lower arranged module 22b may have a bore 42 sized to receive the smaller diameter cylindrical surface 40 of the upper arranged module. The arrangement shown in FIG . 8 may also be reversed”; see also interior portion 24 for that lowest/base module 22 proximate the ground/soil surface – which is drawn to as the lower body/20 equivalent) having a volume control chamber see remarks above, Shakoor Fig. 5, Fig. 9 sensor(s) 48/208; Fig. 1 and 5, that lowest module/housing 22 optionally with collapsible or fixed tripod support 104, landscape spikes 102, base plate 206, etc., [0035]; in further view of the response to remarks section above, describing the manner in which Shakoor’s upper middle and lower modules 22, with hollow interior chambers/portions, read on ‘volume control chambers’ – see remarks above, attached to intermediate module(s) 22 above, Figs 1/9 – wherein each module may move/slide/translate along e.g. the Z axis for coupling with the base/lowest and any additional intermediate modules 22 – see Fig. 8, [0024], etc.,);
wherein the central embedded microcontroller, embedded controller (200), central microcontroller, soil sensors and actuators are powered by a regulating unit (400) that is fed by a solar panel (500) as energy source (Figs. 1, 2 and 9, [0034] “The remote field controller and sensor 20,200 may be provided with solar panels 98 for powering the on-board electronics 28 and the sensors 26. … While the drawings show three solar panels, additional solar panels may be provided as needed. One or more solar panels 98 may be operatively connected to the battery source 44 located within the hollow interior of one or more of the modules, and configured to allow charging of the battery source 44, as needed. Thus, the remote field controller and sensor may be a net-zero energy device”); and
the system further comprises a communication unit (600) that includes a router (610) with a wireless connection to Internet ([0025] “the electronics and other internal module equipment 28 may be based upon an Internet of Things platform that allows fast and seamless connection of an environmental and crop sensor to the cloud via the internet”; Raspberry Pis have network interfaces, to include wired Ethernet and 2.4Ghz/5Ghz Wi-Fi; [0041] “A central wireless receiver 220 may be integrated with one or more remote field controller and sensors 20,200 deployed in a field of crops 222. The central wireless receiver 220 may be integrated with other field operational equipment 224 to provide automated irrigation and delivery of water, pest-control or fertilization when and where it is needed. The data may be gathered in the field 222 and transmitted to a cloud computing and storage facility 226. The data may be processed via the cloud computing and storage facility 226 and transmitted to a user 228. The cloud computing and storage facility 226 may generate reports that are customized according to location, type of crops and time of the year. Real time data may be sent to a phone/tablet/PC 230 of the user 228”).
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the soil sensors (310) include a pH sensor (311), a humidity sensor (312), a temperature sensor (313) [0026] “The crop and environmental sensors 26 may be configured for collection of data related to conditions of light , soil temperature and moisture”, [0035] “for the soil measuring devices such as a minirhizotron soil imager 48 or a soil moisture probe 208 for measuring soil conditions such as soil water content, soil nutrients, and soil pH”).
Shakoor fails to explicitly disclose those soil sensors as comprising any methane sensor. As identified in the remarks above, Shakoor’s sensors 26 are located proximate to upper and lower body portions, but are disclosed as not necessarily being contained solely within the interior chamber/portion of 22.
Byron however evidences the obvious nature of a deployable device in an agricultural context comprising soil sensors further including a methane sensor ([0030] “A soil sensor can measure any one or more of measures soil moisture, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, methane, oxygen, and/or nitrate (i.e., with respect to the soil)”) and an atmospheric methane sensor distinct from that soil methane sensor ([0030], see remarks above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Shakoor such that the disclosed sensors 26, such as soil probe 208 (and also one or more of sensors 26 asssociated with a top/upper module) further comprise methane sensors (ground/soil and atmospheric/environmental respectively) as taught/ suggested by Byron, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and apparent to POSITA, that acquiring multi-source/complimentary sensor information may facilitate a data analysis that more comprehensively and/or precisely characterizes measured changes and their associated root causes, and as further suggested in Byron that determining such a soil characteristic more specifically may serve for optimizing variables influencing crop health/quality, yield, etc..
As previously presented in the rejection of now cancelled claim 6, Shakoor further suggests to the system wherein one or more sensors are located in a volume control chamber (21) ([0025] 26 located within interior 24), and Byron evidences the obvious nature of soil and atmospheric methane sensors (Byron [0030]).
Shakoor at the minimum suggests, and POSITA would recognize, that housing any of sensors 26 within hollow interior 24 of modules 22, in a manner not otherwise interfering with their intended function(s)/operation, analogous to e.g. Applicant’s 21 illustrated as an interior/chamber portion proximate the base/ground portion of the system, would provide protective benefit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor in view of Byron, so as to house one or more of those various disclosed sensors, and methane sensors in particular, within the interior of those associated modules similar to 26 of Shakoor more broadly, the motivation as being suggested in Shakoor and evident to POSITA that locating such a sensor within interior 24 may serve to protect the sensors in question from damage and/or loss – particularly during transit and/or redeployment (MPEP 2143 Rationale (G)).
As to claim 2, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the lower body (20) (Fig. 1 and 5, that lowest module/housing 22 optionally with collapsible or fixed tripod support 104, landscape spikes 102, base plate 206, etc., [0035]) is attached to an intermediate body (30) that has one translation degree of freedom (attached to intermediate module(s) 22 above, Figs 1/9 – wherein each module may move/slide/translate along e.g. the Z axis for coupling with the base/lowest and any additional intermediate modules 22 – see Fig. 8, [0024], etc.,; Examiner also notes that ‘a’/’one’ and disclosure for at least one is not understood to require ‘solely’/only one);
wherein the intermediate body (30) is attached to the upper body (40) with two rotational degrees of freedom (Figures 1, 9, 8, intermediate (Fig. 3) and uppermost modules (Fig. 2) 22 are characterized by two rotational degrees of freedom, e.g. in the x and y axis, as identified above, [0024] modules couple by inserting one into the other (Fig. 8) and e.g. rotating in an x-y plane to align latches/toggle clamps 30 (Fig. 7)).
As to claim 4, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the atmospheric sensors (110) further comprise sensors selected from the group consisting of a wind speed, a wind direction sensor (111), a relative humidity sensor (112), a temperature sensor (113), a radiation sensor (115), and combinations thereof (as amended, Markush group requiring any of those presented in the alternative, [0005] “Environmental and crop sensors on the remote field controller and sensor may be configured to take real-time measurements of temperature, humidity, CO2, barometric pressure, light quantity and quality, wind speed and direction, rainfall, soil moisture, soil temperature, pH and nutrient composition”, [0033] “The remote field controller and sensor 20,200 may be provided with an anemometer 94 at its topmost portion to measure wind speeds without interference from the measured crops”, [0040] “operation without interference from the measured crops. Barometric pressure, CO2 , temperature, humidity, and light sensors 26 along the length of the remote field controller and sensor may allow for individual readings to create a gradient of conditions and to track changing conditions”, [0042], etc.,; while not required for the case of claim 4 given those limitations in the alternative, Bond et al. (US 2018/0136113 A1) discloses atmospheric CH4 sensor(s) e.g. [0009] in a similarly deployed apparatus/tower, as does Byron as applied for the case of claim 5 below).
As to claim 7, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the upper body (40) has an arm (41) with one rotational degree of freedom (Fig. 1, topmost/upper module 22 comprising arm 90, in view of [0032] “The arm 90 may be articulated, telescopic, and/or otherwise adjustable along its length to allow customization of its length as desired in a particular application. The camera or imaging system 46 may be configured to provide hemispherical imaging of the canopy of the measured crops”; Examiner notes that articulation disclosure is pertinent, in further view of the manner in each of 46 are oriented so as to obtain views of the canopy from above and below – see Fig. 1, Abs, etc.).
As to claim 8, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the intermediate body (30) is a telescope type body, to minimize the effects of the positional variance of the atmospheric sensors during the growth of the agricultural crop ([0023] “Each module 22 may be approximately two to three feet tall. The modules 22 allow the operator the ability to vary the height of the field controller and sensor by stacking the modules together end to end, which in turn allows users to scale their particular system with varying crop sizes within crop rotations”).
As to claim 9, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the support device also has an anchor body (10) (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0035] “The remote field controller and sensor 20,200 may be secured to the ground using landscape spikes 102. The landscape spikes 102 may be directed through legs 104 or a base plate 206 of the lower or base module. As mentioned, the other landscape spikes 36 may be connected to the guy wires 34 extending from the spikes to guy wire eyelets 32 on one or more of the modules 22. The spikes 36,102 may be set into solid ground below plowed farm soil in a manner to accommodate crop spacing and provide maximum stability for the remote field controller and sensor 20,220. Additionally, a tripod support 104 (collapsible or fixed) may be added to the lower or base module to provide additional rigidity for remote field controller and sensor 20,200 when deployed in-field”).
As to claim 12, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the system also includes a logical support with a portal graphical user interface that deploys and sorts information in real time about regions, crops, genotypes and networks (Figs 14-16, [0042] “FIGS. 14-16 show an exemplary graphic user interface 300 that may be displayed on a phone / tablet / PC 230 to allow the user 228 to interface with the remote field controller and sensor 20,200. The user 228 may select one of many remote field controllers and sensors 20,200 and access in real time conditions 302 being monitored and sensed by the remote field controller and sensor , as well as historic data 304 (FIG. 16). The data and information accessible through the graphic user interface 300 may correlate to the sensors deployed and configured on the remote field controller and sensor, and may include functionality to allow …”).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1) and Keane et al. “The development of novel automated technology to measure trace gas fluxes from agricultural systems” (2015).
As to claim 3, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shakoor fails to explicitly disclose the system as being configured to measure a difference between methane concentration measured at the environmental methane sensor and methane concentration measured by the volume control chamber methane sensor.
As previously presented in the rejection of claim 14, Byron at least suggests a measure between environmental/atmospheric and root zone methane sensors (Byron [0028-0030] atmospheric sensor (corr to 114) obtaining methane data [0030] “An atmospheric sensor node can measure one or more atmospheric variables. For example, an atmospheric sensor may measure, e.g., air temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, ammonia, methane, oxygen, and or other atmospheric variables”, and distinct soil sensor (corr to 314) obtaining methane data with respect to the soil ([0030] “A soil sensor can measure any one or more of measures soil moisture, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, methane, oxygen, and/or nitrate (i.e., with respect to the soil)”); Byron further suggests sensor data and related measures may be plant/crop specific, as distinguished from those of the environment ([0029], [0024] in view of plant profile data), and further that measured data/variables may be further characterized by those which pertain to a ‘root zone’ and/or a ‘canopy’ area ([0028])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor in view of Byron so as to obtain a difference measurement between the atmospheric and soil/ground zone sensors as taught/suggested by Byron, the motivation as similar taught/suggested therein that such a measure (e.g. treating atmospheric as background/to be subtracted/removed) may serve to isolate methane (and/or any of those additionally measured) that is/are ground/root zone specific.
Keane further evidences the obvious nature of measuring a difference between methane concentration measured at an environmental/canopy/vegetation level methane sensor and methane concentration measured at a ground/soil/sub-vegetation level (page 36 § 1.1.4 Soil fluxes vs net ecosystem fluxes “It has been known for some time that CH4 flux from soil to the atmosphere may be facilitated by aerenchymous tissue in rice plants (ButterbachBahl et al., 1997), peatland plants such as Eriophorum vaginatum (Saarnio & Silvola, 1999) and other wetland species (Ding et al., 2005). Trace gas emissions have been measured from the stems of nonaerenchymous plant species: Gauci et al. (2010) measured significant emissions of CH4 from the stems of alders (Alnus glutinosa) and N2O emissions have also been detected from stems of wetland trees (Rusch & Rennenberg, 1998) and non-wetland tree species (Pihlatie et al., 2005). In order to be confident of the total net GHG exchange it is important to be able to measure both the fluxes of trace gases from the soils beneath vegetation, but also the fluxes from the vegetation itself”, page 39 § 1.2.2. “For example, using a tower with chemical traps (e.g. Duyzer et al., 1992) or piped inlets at different heights serving a fast response analyser, it is possible to detect positive and negative gradients and to subsequently calculate ecosystem fluxes”, “Probes are left uncapped outside of sampling periods and fluxes are calculated using the same regression approaches employed for chamber-based methods, with a number of assumptions being made (see below)”, page 47 second paragraph, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor in view of Byron, so as to determine a methane concentration difference between that upper/canopy and lower/soil methane sensor as taught/suggested by Keane, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such a differential measure would enable calculating a CH4 flux that may itself be used as a predictor of crop yield, may be indicative of necessary corrective measures to facilitate a more optimal yield, and/or may serve to identify crop varieties that optimize greenhouse gas emission relative to yield.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1) and Kellner (US 8,407,949 B2).
As to claim 10, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 9.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the anchor body (10) includes an axle-shaped stem (11) that forms or fixes an anchor mechanism (Figure 1, [0035] landscape spikes 102 and 36).
Shakoor fails to explicitly disclose any anchoring means comprising a screw or helical anchor (12).
Kellner however evidences the obvious nature of a threaded anchor/grounds screw in securing similar/analogous equipment (Figure 9, col 1 “The invention can be used to anchor a variety of structural elements in the soil. Examples of such structural elements are traffic signs, advertising panels, solar arrays, conservatories, transmission towers, and a multitude of other structural elements”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the combination of Shakoor in view of Byron, in further view of Kellner, since implementing such an anchoring alternative as taught/suggested by Kellner would constitute a simple substitution of one known anchoring element for another, so as to obtain predictable results further characterized by a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 KSR Rationale B with further reference to In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 83 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1) and Coen et al. (US 2022/0307971 A1).
As to claim 11, Shakoor in view of Byron teaches/suggests the system of claim 1.
Shakoor further discloses the system wherein the multi-spectral camera (210) (46) captures NIR imaging, multispectral imaging, [0032] “The camera or imaging system 46 may include infra-red or near infra-red imaging device or a CCD device, which may prove useful in determining water retention or loss in the canopy of the measured crops”, [0036] “Additional room on the camera arm may accommodate additional sensors, e.g., laser proximity sensor / LIDAR, ultrasound, multispectral and hyperspectral sensors”).
Shakoor fails to disclose 46 and/or 46 in conjunction with additional sensors mounted on boom/arm 90 as also obtaining thermal images (claim limitations are in the conjunctive and the claim requires all modalities recited).
Coen however evidences the obvious nature of a vertically oriented bracket 104 comprising sensors 108, deployed in an agricultural environment and wherein one or more imaging sensors perform thermal imaging ([0016] “a plurality of imaging sensors of different modalities selected from the group consisting of: a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) sensor; a multispectral sensor; a hyperspectral sensor; a depth sensor; a time-of-flight camera; a LIDAR; and a thermal sensor, the plurality of sensors mounted on a bracket at predetermined geometrical relationships;”, [0042-0043], [0047] “According to certain embodiments, RGB sensor may provide for detecting changes in leaf color, a depth sensor may provide for detecting changes in plant size and growth rate; and a thermal sensor may provide for detecting changes in transpiration. According to certain exemplary embodiments, combinations of the above can provide for early detection and predicting stress resulting from lack of water or lack of fertilizer”, etc., ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Shakoor to further acquire thermal images as disclosed in analogous system/method of Coen, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such imagery may assist in detecting changes in plant/crop transpiration and accordingly provide for early detection/prediction of plant stress and more expedient corrective measures (e.g. remote watering of Shakoor ([0041])).
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1), Coen et al. (US 2022/0307971 A1), Lan et al. “Development of an Integrated Sensor and Instrumentation System for Measuring Crop Conditions”, Itzhaky et al. (US 2017/0161560 A1), and Johnston et al. (US 11,345,052 B1).
As to claim 13, this claim is the method claim (method of use) associated with the system/apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected accordingly. Shakoor as previously identified discloses powering the system via solar panels 98 in conjunction with battery source 44. For the case of that ‘obtain[ing]’ step, Shakoor fails to explicitly disclose soil data regarding methane and nitrous oxide, however reference may be made to Byron as applied above for the case of claim 1 as amended. Shakoor discloses that transmitting step as identified above in the rejection of claim 1 and functions as performed by communication unit 600 equivalents (Shakoor [0041]). Shakoor fails to disclose a radiometric camera calibration step, as Shakoor fails to disclose a thermal imager/sensor broadly as identified above for the case of claim 11. Reference may be made to the rejection to claim 11 above, as that same modification and supporting motivation in view of Coen are applicable, and Coen further discloses a radiometric camera calibration (Coen Fig. 2A device calibration 204, field specific calibration 328 of Fig. 3, Coen [0049] “According to certain exemplary embodiments, at least one calibration is radiometric calibration” - the same modification above for the case of claim 11 applies herein, and POSITA would additionally be motivated to provide/perform such a calibration so as to ensure the associated data is useable/reliable, as evidenced by the radiometric calibration of Coen). Shakoor discloses process[ing] the acquired data, to include images, so as to calculate/ascertain those various plant phenotype characteristics (e.g. [0005] “imaging devices that allow continuous calculation of leaf area indices, leaf angle distributions and canopy geometry/openness”). Coen further discloses that ‘process[ing]’ step and phenotype characterization step ([0004] “The process of crop phenotyping, including the extraction of visual traits from plants, allows crop examination and inferring important properties concerning the crop status (Araus, J. LET AL. 2014. Trends in plant science 19, 52-61). Crops phenotyping relies on non-destructive collection of data from plants over time. Developing precision management requires tools for collecting plant phenotypic data, environmental data and computational environment enabling high throughput processing of the data received”, etc.,).
Shakoor in view of Byron and Cohen fails to explicitly disclose calculating an NDVI. As identified above however Shakoor concerns the calculation of those leaf area indices as disclosed, and Lan evidences the obvious nature of NDVI as used in phenotype characterization (Lan page 2, section 1 Introduction “Successful information acquisition relies on the ability of sensors and instrumentation in detecting these crop canopy variables, which are indicative of crop growth (Goel et al. 2003). The Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) is a commonly used measurement of crop health in agricultural applications. NDVI is calculated as: … Healthier crop canopy will absorb more red and reflect more near infrared light, and consequently has a higher NDVI value…. NDVI was found to be closely correlated with the Leaf Area Index (Bechtel et al., 1997; Aparicio et al., 2002; Leon et al., 2003)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor which explicitly concerns those disclosed phenotype characteristics e.g. leaf area indexes, to additionally calculate NDVI given that relationship therebetween as disclosed by Lan and readily recognized by POSITA, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein (Lan at page 2) that given the disclosed close correlation, a calculated NDVI may serve to corroborate LAI as calculated alternatively.
Shakoor in view of Lan, Byron and Cohen fails to disclose any low-power/sleep/standby/hibernation mode, however Shakoor discloses powering the device via solar panels/batteries (known to generate for only daylight/illuminated hours and limited by restrictions on capacity and draw rate) a net-zero energy device ([0034]), and such devices generally feature such modes/steps so as to optimize power management.
Itzhaky evidences the obvious nature of a system/method employing sensor suite/module 120 ([0027] “The sensor module 120 may optionally include an environmental sensor 125. The environmental sensor 125 may further include a plurality of environmental sensor units (not shown) such as, but not limited to, a temperature sensor unit, a humidity sensor unit, a soil moisture sensor unit, a sunlight sensor unit, an irradiance sensor unit, a size measurement apparatus, and so on. In some embodiments, the plurality of environmental sensor units may be housed in a single sensor module housing (not shown). In another embodiment, the environmental sensor units may be spatially distributed but communicatively connected to the communication unit of the sensor module 120”), optionally powered by a solar panel ([0028]), and a off/standby/hibernation/low-power consumption equivalent mode ([0029] “In an embodiment, the sensor module 120 may be further configured to switch on/off in accordance with a predetermined time schedule based on the predetermined image frequency and, optionally, based on the predetermined frequencies for the monitoring data so that the sensor module may only be switched on when it is acquiring data. This switching between off and on may enable reduced power consumption by the sensor module 120”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor in view of Lan, Byron and Coen to further implement a hibernate/sleep/stand-by mode between sensor acquisitions as taught/suggested by Itzhaky, the motivation as similarly taught/ suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA that such a mode may allow for more regular operation/acquisitions even for those instances characterized by less available solar power.
While Shakoor at the minimum suggests a positioning/deployment step for device 20,200 further comprising a height customization ([0023], [0040]) in addition to articulating arms/booms 90 to ensure a desired coverage of plant canopy is realized (Fig. 1 lowermost 46 is oriented upwards, Abs, even if manually), Shakoor in view of Byron and Cohen fails to disclose adjusting one or more positions of the device and/or sub-devices thereof by means of one or more drive units and motor(s).
Johnston however evidences the obvious nature of automatic means for adjusting the height of a telescoping mast/support body with a top-positioned camera/sensor payload (Abs “A robot may use the extensible mast to elevate cameras or other sensors to a higher vantage point”, Fig. 1 telescoping section 130, actuator 118, control electronics 116, col 21 lines 45-55, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shakoor in view of Lan, Byron, Coen and Itzhaky, to further control a height customization operation automatically and by means of corresponding drive units and motors as taught/ suggested by Johnston, the motivation as recognized by POSITA that such an automatic height adjustment may serve to require less manual intervention over the course of a growing/crop season (Shakoor [0040]).
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor et al. (US 2021/0045301 A1) in view of Byron, III et al. (US 20170105373 A1), Coen et al. (US 2022/0307971 A1), Lan et al. “Development of an Integrated Sensor and Instrumentation System for Measuring Crop Conditions”, Itzhaky et al. (US 2017/0161560 A1), Johnston et al. (US 11,345,052 B1) and Keane et al. “The development of novel automated technology to measure trace gas fluxes from agricultural systems” (2015).
As to claim 14, Shakoor as modified by Lan, Byron, Coen, Itzhaky and Johnston teaches/suggests the method of claim 13.
Shakoor as modified for the case of claim 13, further teaches/suggests during the stage of data collection by the atmospheric sensors (110) and soil sensors (310) a differential measurement in ppm is performed between the environmental methane sensor (114) and the volume control chamber (21) methane sensor (314) (see remarks above, Byron [0028-0030] atmospheric sensor (corr to 114) obtaining methane data [0030] “An atmospheric sensor node can measure one or more atmospheric variables. For example, an atmospheric sensor may measure, e.g., air temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, ammonia, methane, oxygen, and or other atmospheric variables”, and distinct soil sensor (corr to 314) obtaining methane data with respect to the soil ([0030] “A soil sensor can measure any one or more of measures soil moisture, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, methane, oxygen, and/or nitrate (i.e., with respect to the soil)”); Byron further suggests sensor data and related measures may be plant/crop specific, as distinguished from those of the environment ([0029], [0024] in view of plant profile data), and further that measured data/variables may be further characterized by those which pertain to a ‘root zone’ and/or a ‘canopy’ area ([0028])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the proposed combination so as to obtain a difference measurement between the atmospheric and soil/ground zone sensors as taught/suggested by Byron, the motivation as similar taught/suggested therein that such a measure (e.g. treating atmospheric as background/to be subtracted/removed) may serve to isolate methane (and/or any of those additionally measured) that is/are ground/root zone specific.
Keane further evidences the obvious nature of measuring a difference between methane concentration measured at an environmental/canopy/vegetation level methane sensor and methane concentration measured at a ground/soil/sub-vegetation level (page 36 § 1.1.4 Soil fluxes vs net ecosystem fluxes “It has been known for some time that CH4 flux from soil to the atmosphere may be facilitated by aerenchymous tissue in rice plants (ButterbachBahl et al., 1997), peatland plants such as Eriophorum vaginatum (Saarnio & Silvola, 1999) and other wetland species (Ding et al., 2005). Trace gas emissions have been measured from the stems of nonaerenchymous plant species: Gauci et al. (2010) measured significant emissions of CH4 from the stems of alders (Alnus glutinosa) and N2O emissions have also been detected from stems of wetland trees (Rusch & Rennenberg, 1998) and non-wetland tree species (Pihlatie et al., 2005). In order to be confident of the total net GHG exchange it is important to be able to measure both the fluxes of trace gases from the soils beneath vegetation, but also the fluxes from the vegetation itself”, page 39 § 1.2.2. “For example, using a tower with chemical traps (e.g. Duyzer et al., 1992) or piped inlets at different heights serving a fast response analyser, it is possible to detect positive and negative gradients and to subsequently calculate ecosystem fluxes”, “Probes are left uncapped outside of sampling periods and fluxes are calculated using the same regression approaches employed for chamber-based methods, with a number of assumptions being made (see below)”, page 47 second paragraph, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the combination of references proposed, so as to determine a differential measurement in ppm between that upper/canopy and lower/soil methane sensor as taught/suggested by Keane, the motivation as similarly taught/ suggested therein that such a differential measure would enable calculating a CH4 flux that may itself be used as a predictor of crop yield, may be indicative of necessary corrective measures to facilitate a more optimal yield, and/or may serve to identify crop varieties that optimize greenhouse gas emission relative to yield.
Additional References
Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the art.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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.
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights