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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-102009026346 (Rahe), see translation. As to claim 1, Rahe discloses a detecting device for detecting a plant condition including a hollow strut (first line 8) fixedly (fixed to tractor 1) standing (note inlet 7 of line 8 appears to “stand” in an upright position) on a culture medium (plant area) to support plants, at least one introduction port (opening suction port 7) communicating with an interior and an exterior of the strut, at least one odor sensor (4) disposed at a position corresponding to the at least on port in the interior of the strut in the interior of the strut (that extends from 8 to line 6) and configured to detect an odor of the plant, and a pump (suction fan/pump 12) connected to the strut (via line 6) and configured to suck outside air from the introduction port (opening 7) into the interior of the strut, see translation and figs. 1-2. Further, it is noted that Rahe fail to specifically indicate that the strut fixedly standing on a culture medium to support a plant, per se. However, in figs. 1 and 2, the line 8 with port 7 is fixedly mounted to the tractor 1 and extends downward in an “upright” or “standing” orientation with respect to the ground which would obviously have soil (the culture medium) which ground soil would support the plants being sniffed. Hence, the strut fixedly standing on a culture medium to support a plant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have designated the strut as fixedly standing a culture medium to support a plant given the depiction of fig. 1 and the upright or standing orientation of line 8 with port 7 with respect to the culture medium or soil. As to claim 2, note the line transports the air such that it is hollow within main body portion (line 6) and in the shape of a column as a hollow columnar main body portion and at least one hollow box-shaped housing (measuring chamber 14 with housing 5) in communication with an interior of the main body portion (line 6) of the strut and the port (7) communicates between the housing portion (line 6) and an external (at port 7) and the odor sensor (4) is disposed interiorly of the one housing portion (line 6). As to claim 3, it does appear that the connection portion diameter is negligible when viewed in fig. 2 such that it is smaller in diameter than the housing portion, when taking the diameter as horizontally through fig. 2. As to claim 4, detachability of the housing portion is not specified by Rahe. However, to make the housing portion as detachable is considered a matter of design choice since it is well known in the art in order to be able to access the odor sensor for servicing, etc. The separation of elements, where removability would be desirable, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dulberg, 283 F.2d 522, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961). As to claim 5, note the hollow columnar shape depicted in figs. 1 and 2 for line 8 where the opening is on a lower side surface at 7. As to claim 6, note the end opening of line 8 appears to be tapered where the opening expands (i.e. it is a narrower opening in the interior of the line 8 as compared to the outer part of the opening) from an interior toward an external, see figures 1 and 2. As to claims 8 and 9, note the additional opening at 10. Further, a single odor sensor 4 is used via a valve switching between one inlet line 8 to another line 10. However, the usage of multiple odor sensors 4 at equal intervals according the level of the opening as an alternative to a single sensor with a valve for switching is considered a matter of design choice since duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe (DE 102009026346) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8- above, and further in view of CN-204968511 (Chen), see translation. As to claim 7, Rahe lacks a teaching for provision of an environmental sensor to detect one of temperature, humidity or carbon dioxide. In a related prior art device, Chen discloses an automatic weeding trolley which includes plural temperature and humidity sensors 7 along with a smell/odor detector 5, see fig. 1 and translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included the additional temperature and humidity sensors to the device of Rahe along with the odor detector since Chen discloses the temperature and humidity sensor can detect the condition of the soil so as to judge the concentration of the plant, see translation page 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot -because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant appears to argue the standing orientation but it is noted that the specification indicates that the strut has a “standing portion 21” which appears to refer to the orientation. Also, Applicant appears to argue that the Rahe strut is not fixed directly on the culture medium but that is not found in the claim language and it is also noted that the specification also does not find support for that feature. It would appear that the plant is fixedly attached to the strut which in itself appears to be counter intuitive as every plant would then require a separate sensor?? Also, please clarify the novelty as simply securing a single sensor to each plant would be obvious as opposed to a single sensor for multiple plants seems to be maybe a different method as there is no significant means of securing disclosed in the apparatus and hence the apparatus is not patentably distinct. In other words, where does the novelty lie since the measurement module is the same odor sensor in the same orientation?
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 Martin 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights