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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of CLAIMS 1-10 AND 16-20 in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search for both Groups I and II would at least partially overlap. This is not persuasive for the following reasons.
The inventions of Group I and Group II belong different statutory categories; apparatus and method, respectively.
The controller of Group I requires structural limitations that are not required for the controller of Group II; i.e., a processor and a memory.
The system of Group I is related to agriculture/crop cultivation, while the method of Group II has potential utility in at least agriculture and material handling.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
CLAIMS 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 19 December 2025.
Claim Objections
CLAIM 2 is objected to because of the following informality: a misspelled word. Appropriate correction is required.
In line 3, change “forth” to --fourth--.
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.
CLAIMS 2-4 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 2 It is unclear how the claimed system can comprise both “at least one” sensor and a second or higher sensor. For example, if there is only one sensor in the system, it is not possible for that one sensor to be “a fifth sensor coupled to one of the nozzles.”
CLAIMS 3-4 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 2.
CLAIM 4 The recitation “at least one of a drag line sensor coupled to the drag line” is unclear because only one type of sensor is recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-10, 16, 19 AND 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Magnusson et al. (US 2019/0281776 A1).
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5-10
CLAIM 1 Magnusson et al. ‘776 (“Magnusson”) shows a system for crop monitoring, comprising:
a plurality of support towers (16) configured to irrigate a crop;
a plurality of wheels (20), each wheel coupled to one of the plurality of support
towers (16);
a water conduit (24) extending between the plurality of support towers (16);
a truss system (18) extending between the plurality of support towers, the truss system configured to support the water conduit (24);
a plurality of nozzles (“drop nozzles” [0033]), each nozzle fluidly coupled to the water conduit (24);
a sensor array (40, 42) configured to collect data associated with a parameter of the crop ([0048]);
a controller (30) communicatively coupled to the sensor array (40, 42), the controller comprising a processor and a memory ([0051]), wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
receiving the data associated with a parameter of the crop ([0047]);
determining at least one action item corresponding to data associated with the parameter of the crop ([0045]-[0046]); and
sending a signal indicating that the action item should be performed ([0045]);
CLAIM 2 wherein the sensor array (40, 42) includes a first sensor coupled to one of the support towers ([0048]);
CLAIM 3 further comprising, a drag line fluidly connecting the water conduit to at least one of the nozzles (Fig. 1);
CLAIM 5 wherein the parameter of the crop includes at least one of a crop height, a crop bloom, a crop moisture content, an air humidity content, a soil moisture content, a crop color, a crop growth stage, a crop identifier, or a soil fertilizer content ([0048], cl. 1);
CLAIM 6 wherein the at least one action item corresponding to data associated with the parameter of the crop includes an indication that the crop should be watered, an indication that the crop should be chemically treated, and an indication that the crop should be left alone ([0029], [0045], [0046]);
CLAIM 7 wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps further comprising:
estimating a wait time until the least one action item corresponding to data
associated with the parameter of the crop should be performed; and
sending a signal indicative of the wait time ([0045]-[0047]);
CLAIM 8 wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps further comprising:
receiving an indication of a crop attribute; and
estimating a dry down time for the crop ([0047]);
CLAIM 9 wherein the crop attribute includes a crop type ([0046]), a crop age (“maturity” [0048]), and a harvest stage indication ([0055]); and
CLAIM 10 further comprising, a user interface communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to send the indication of a crop attribute to the controller following a user input (“custom application-specific device” [0042]).
CLAIMS 16, 19 AND 20
CLAIM 16 All of the features of the claimed system are taught by Magnusson, as applied above to CLAIM 1. Additionally. Magnusson teaches (a) a soil moisture sensor (40, 42) coupled to the wheels and configured to measure data indication a soil water content ([0048]),1 and (b) a crop moisture sensor (40, 42) coupled to at least one of the support towers and configured to collect data indicating humidity in air above the crop ([0048]).
CLAIM 19 All of the features of the claimed system are taught by Magnusson, as applied above to CLAIM 8.
CLAIM 20 All of the features of the claimed system are taught by Magnusson, as applied above to CLAIM 7.
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, 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIM 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson et al. (US 2019/0281776 A1) in view of Abts (US 2014/0225747 A1).
CLAIM 4 Magnusson fails to teach a drag line sensor.
Abts ‘747 (“Abts”) shows a system (Figs. 1, 4) comprising a sensor (40) coupled to a drag line (50). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a sensor (Abts, 40) to the drag line (Magnusson, Fig. 1). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for measuring the pressure in the drag line, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson et al. (US 2019/0281776 A1) in view of Hendrickson et al. (US 2019/0126308 A1).
CLAIM 17 Magnusson discloses the use of sensors for assessing crop growth data but fails to teach specifically a height sensor. Hendrickson et al. ‘308 (“Hendrickson”) shows a system (Figs. 2, 3 and 5) that comprises a sensor (32) for determining crop height ([0013]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art system with the addition of a height sensor, as suggested by Hendrickson. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for assessing crop growth stage to generate an irrigation schedule and estimate a maturity date (Hendrickson, [0058]) with a reasonable expectation of success
CLAIM 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson et al. (US 2019/0281776 A1) in view of Schoeny et al. (US 2020/0037491 A1).
CLAIM 18 Magnusson fails to teach a color sensor. Schoeny et al. ‘747 (“Schoeny”) shows (Figs. 1, 2) an agricultural implement that comprises a sensor (120) configured to detect soil color ([0030]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a color sensor to the prior art system, as suggested by Schoeny. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for assessing field and/or crop conditions based on color (Schoeny, [0030]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
10 August 2026
1 In [0031], Magnusson teaches expressly the plurality of wheels (20) as part of the support towers (16). Thus, a sensor connected to any part of the support towers is connected, either directly or indirectly, to the wheels.
Prosecution Insights