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 .
Summary
Claims 1-3, 12, and 13 are pending. Claims 1-3, 12, and 13 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 10 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI (US 20220236242) in view of TEMPLETON et al. (US 6306620) and TOMII et al. (US 20160063420).
Regarding claim 1: WEI discloses: A plant state detection system (abstract) comprising: a plurality of gas detectors (100 in FIG. 1 including sensing elements 106-1A-106-1K in FIG. 4A) configured to be arranged at equal intervals in a cultivation area in which plants are cultivated (This is a statement of intended use and does limit the structure of the claimed invention.), each gas detector including a gas detection unit (sensing elements 106-1A-106-1K in FIG. 4A) configured to detect gas emitted from a plant (para. 51); a container configured to accommodate the gas detection unit (The housing of receiver 106 best seen in FIG. 1), and a suction machine (micropump 130 in FIG. 7) configured to suck air around the plant into the container (para. 71) and a plant state detector configured to acquire gas information detected by the gas detection unit (Camera 118 detects color change in sensors 106-1-106-K as described in para. 51. Other means of state detection such as electrical detection are also discussed in para. 66.) and detect a state of the plant based on the gas information (para. 5, 34-35), wherein the gas detection unit detects one or both of leaf alcohol and leaf aldehyde as the gas, IUPAC name of the leaf alcohol is cis-3-hexen-1-ol or trans-2-hexen-1-ol, IUPAC name of the leaf aldehyde is trans-2-hexenal or cis-3-hexenal (para. 57), and wherein the plant state detector includes a display control unit (mobile device S in FIG. 3; para. 51), and the display control unit is configured to display the state of the plant corresponding to arrangement positions of the plurality of gas detectors (para. 35), a discharge port (106-3 in FIG. 7) formed at a lower portion of the container (Because it is a handheld device that can have any orientation, “lower” and “upper” are arbitrary. The orientation in FIG. 1 shows the discharge port in a “lower” portion.), and wherein the suction machine (micropump 130 in FIG. 7) is provided at a position of the discharge port (FIG. 7) and configured to draw air around the plant from the suction port (106-2) into the container by discharging air in the container from the discharge port (by operation of micropump 130).
WEI discloses using detection of VOCs to determine “the presence of disease, contamination, pest infestation or other stress condition” (para. 14, emphasis added), but does not specify that one of those other stress conditions is temperature stress.
TEMPLETON however does teach detecting volatile gas from plants to determine temperature stress (col. 1 lines 27-40, col. 4 lines 19-36).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to determine temperature stress from outgassed VOCs as taught by TEMPLETON with the gas sensors of WEI because temperature stresses can affect plants future growth potential, but not be immediately apparent from visual inspection (col. 1 lines 26-40 of TEMPLETON).
WEI does not disclose a plurality of gas detectors at equal intervals in a plant cultivation area.
TOMII however does teach a plant cultivation area (FIG. 1) with many plants (15) and evenly spaced monitoring apparatuses (14), wherein each monitoring apparatus has a gas detector (CO2 sensor 1404 in FIG. 3A). TOMII also teaches a GPS unit (para. 157) that allows mapping positional and growth information for particular plants (para. 107, 157).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use multiple VOC sensors of the type taught by WEI and evenly space them over a plant cultivation area as taught by TOMII so that plant pathogens can be diagnosed from volatile emissions (abstract of WEI) while an extended area of farmland is being managed (para. 45 of TOMII).
WEI does not disclose that the suction port and discharge port are on opposite sides of the container. As discussed above, direction is arbitrary for the device of WEI because it can be held in any orientation.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to locate suction and discharge ports leading to a chamber with a gas sensor at any convenient location based on such considerations as the position of the device with respect to the plant and the geometry of the device. Therefore having the suction port on the top of the container is an Obvious Rearrangement of Parts because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the present case, locating the inlet and outlet of the chamber on opposite sides (e.g. the left and right sides of the orientation shown in FIG. 1) would have no affect on the operation of the device.
Regarding claims 2: WEI does not specify detecting carbon dioxide or ethylene.
TEMPLETON however does teach measuring ethylene (col. 8 lines 35-43; FIG. 14) outgassed from plants (abstract), through a color change process (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to detect the presence or concentration of ethylene as a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) from plants as taught by TEMPLETON because it is associated with ripeness, readiness for harvest, palatability and nutritional quality (col. 13 lines 50-65 of TEMPLETON) making it valuable data to collect for anyone evaluating plants to be used as food.
Regarding claim 13: WEI discloses: the display control unit (mobile device S in FIG. 3; para. 51) and TOMII describes mapping data that corresponds to the location of plants (para. 107, 157).
WEI as modified by TEMPLETON and TOMII does not teach using different shades to display data.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the data analysis art to display data using graphics and make the value/intensity of a particular variable correspond to the shade of the color it is displayed in. All chart creating software has had this capability for decades, and it is called the color scale or shade scale.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI, TEMPLETON and TOMII in view of RAMASAMY et al. (US 20180142277).
Regarding claims 3: Although WEI discloses electrical detection in para. 66, they do not specify that the gas detection unit includes a semiconductor gas sensor using a metal oxide as a sensor configured to detect leaf alcohol or leaf aldehyde.
RAMASAMY however does teach semiconductor sensor using metal oxide (FIG. 5A; col. 18 lines 52-67) on their system for detecting plant VOCs to detect pathogens (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a metal oxide sensor as taught by RAMASAMY as the sensor for WEI, because “106) Metal oxide (MOx) nanomaterials are inexpensive alternative to precious metals (Au, Ag or Pt), and offer many characteristics desirable for electrochemical sensor applications, at a fraction of the cost. Metal oxides have been reported to act as good catalysts for dehydrogenation and/or decomposition of VOCs such as aliphatic alcohols, ketones, acetic acid, etc. By varying their shape and size, one can control their chemical adsorption properties” (col. 18 lines 52-67 of RAMASAMY).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI, TEMPLETON and TOMII in view of LIU et al. (CN 104459052). Please note that a machine translation of LIU has been included with this office action. All references to text in LIU are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 12: WEI does not disclose an airflow sensor.
LIU however does teach an airflow sensor (6 in FIG. 1a) on their plant analysis invention (page 1 lines 11-19).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the airflow sensor of LIU on the device of WEI because the output of gas sensors can be affected by the rate at which gas is flowing across them. Therefore if the airflow is known, it can be accounted for.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The Applicant has argued (page 4 of the Response) that WEI does not disclose the added limitations of claim 1. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 above shows how each of the added limitations is disclosed by WEI or rendered obvious by WEI.
The Applicant has argued (pages 5-6 of the Response) that the prior art does not teach the limitations of the new claims. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The limitations of the new claims have been addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TAN et al. (CN 216039908) teaches an ambient air monitor (FIG. 1) with a gas sensor (13 in FIG. 2) with an inlet (14) on the opposite side of the sensing chamber than the outlet (unlabeled, but to the left of 13).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights