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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 10/27/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 10, 13-21, and 23-25 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and 112 rejections (unless cited in this action) are withdrawn due to amendment and persuasive arguments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered. Regarding Applicant arguments that Shakoor does not teach a sensor arrangement for a controlled agriculture environment, Examiner respond that : firstly: Canopy architecture management is a key strategy used within Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), Canopy architecture management is a horticultural technique to optimize plant growth, and it is most effective when integrated with the environmental controls available in CEA systems. Secondly: this is preamble part of claim and “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 10 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 10:
Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention (MPEP 2173), therefore, term “can” makes claim indefinite; because it is not clear if the limitation after “can” is required or just the sensor (or the first module) is able to operate with rotational invariance (see MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)). For examination it is interpreted as not required limitation.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13-14, 19-21, 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1.
Claim 1
Shakoor discloses:
A sensor arrangement for a controlled agriculture environment for growing plants, the sensor arrangement comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
636
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a modular housing (fig.9 200) comprising first (U2,U11) and second modules (L1) , releasably coupled to one another (function is met by coupling elements 30, e.g., ¶0024: buckle type latches or toggle clamps 30 that allow for removable assembly of the modules to form the remote field controller and sensor),
the first module (U1) being associated with a plant stem zone (26, crop sensor e.g., ¶0025) having a first control system configured to run software (e.g., ¶0024: Each module 22 electronics 28 contained in the hollow interior 24 of the module, any controller electronic has processor is configured to run a software e.g., ¶0025) and having at least one sensor 26 extending from the first module (sensors 26 are extending from surface U2 in e.g., figs.3-4) configured to sense a parameter associated with the plant stem zone conditions (e.g., ¶0025), extending from the first module (sensors 26 are extending from surface U2 in e.g., figs.3-4) and communicate with the first control system (¶0024¶0025¶0039-¶0042: The crop and environmental sensors 26 and the electronics 28 of each of the modules may be configured to act independently of one another or in concert with one another),
the second module L1 being associated with a plant root zone (e.g., soil moisture probe48) and having a second control system configured to run software (e.g., ¶0024: Each module 22 electronics 28 contained in the hollow interior 24 of the module, any controller electronic has processor is configured to run a software ) and having at least one sensor 48 extending from the second module (extending from L1) configured to sense a parameter associated with the plant root zone conditions (e.g., ¶0035), and communicate with the second control system (E.G.,¶0024 Each module 22 electronics 28 contained in the hollow interior 24 of the module), and wherein the sensors of the first control system and the second control form a group that is configured to communicate with a control gateway (e.g., ¶0024: Each module 22 may have … the electronics 28 contained in the hollow interior 24 of the module. The crop and environmental sensors 26 and the electronics 28 of each of the modules may be configured to act independently of one another or in concert with one another,fig.13 ¶0039¶0041-¶0042).
Shakoor does not specifically teach by a threaded arrangement.
In the similar field of endeavor, Lee in e.g., fig.2 teaches upper case 20 and lower case 10 releasably are coupled by a threaded attachment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s threaded attachment‘s for Shakoor’s attachments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the opening and closing of system when needed, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising a third module 96 configured to sense a parameter indicative of airflow (function is met by sensors 94 and 26 e.g., ¶0026¶0033).
Claim 3
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 2, further comprising a fourth module U4 configured as a power source for at least one of the first, second and third modules (e.g., ¶0025 power source 98).
Claim 4
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 3 wherein at least two of the first, second, third and fourth modules are releasably coupled to one another (all modules 22 detachable via clamps 30).
Claim 7
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein at least a portion of at least one sensor 26 is positioned on an external surface of the first module U1.
Claim 8
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein at least one sensor 26 is positioned on the inside (e.g., ¶0025) of the first module U1 and the first module is provided with a permeable screen (50 allow ventilation air e.g., ¶0025) to enable air to pass to that sensor (function met by sensor 26 via opening 50).
Claim 9
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the at least one sensor 26 of the first module U1 senses a parameter indicative of one or more of the following plant stem zone conditions:
a. CO2 (e.g., ¶0036¶0038)
b. Light(e.g., : ¶0025-¶0026 )
c. Humidity(e.g., : ¶0025-¶0026 )
d. Temperature (e.g., : ¶0025-¶0026)
e. Airflow (e.g., ¶0026 )
Claim 13
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the least one sensor 26,48 of the second module L1 senses a parameter indicative of following plant root zone conditions:
Root zone temperature (e.g., soil temperature ¶0026).
Claim 14
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the second module L1 is provided with at least one ground spike (102).
Claim 19
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the modules comprises a hardware port configured for at least one of:
a. recharging (¶0044) the power source 44
b. communication (120 ¶0039 fig.13)
c. data transmission (120 and onboard GPS for sensors e.g., ¶0039)
d. software updates
Claim 20
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 4,
wherein at least two modules receive power (94) directly from the fourth module U4.
Claim 21
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 4,
wherein a module receives power (from 98) directly from the fourth module U4 and at least a portion of that power flows on to another module in the sensor arrangement (e.g., ¶0034).
Claim 23
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 3 wherein the sensor arrangement further comprises a secondary power source to back up power supply (from solar powers) in case of interrupted power supply from the fourth module (e.g., ¶0034).
Claim 24
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 3 wherein at least two of the modules in a sensor arrangement are configured to communicate with one another (e.g., module with solar power communicate with batteries in other modules) and one of the modules is configured to communicate with another sensor arrangement or a gateway (120/122) on behalf of the at least two modules (e.g., ¶0039).
Claim 25
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a controlled environment agriculture (CEA) system comprising a gateway (120/122) and a group of sensor arrangements 26 according to claim 1, wherein the sensor arrangements 26 in the group are configured to communicate with one another (via electronics 28) and one of the sensor arrangements in the group is configured to communicate with the gateway on behalf of the group (e.g., ¶0039).
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1, and Wolak, US 20190350142 A1.
Claim 10
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the at least one sensor 26 is a light sensor (e.g., ¶0026), mounted to the first module U1 such that it can operate with rotational invariance (function is not required).
Additionally/Alternatively Wolak in fig.6 teaches that it can operate with rotational invariance (290 ¶0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wolak’s rotational configuration for Shakoor‘s system so that such that it can operate with rotational invariance as taught by Wolak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the flexibility and coverage of light sensors.
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1 and Godbole, US20210270791A1.
Claim 15
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 14, but does not teach wherein the at least one ground spike is a sensor (though it cites remote field controller and sensor 20,200 may be secured to the ground using landscape spikes 102.)
Godbole in fig.3 teaches wherein the at least one ground spike is a sensor (sensor 336, 340 and 338).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Godbole’s sensor for Shakoor‘s spikes wherein the at least one ground spike is a sensor as taught by Godbole. One of ordinary skill in the art knows sensors with spike configuration and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide measurements in a secure place and eliminate additional spike.
Claim 16
Shakoor in view of Lee combined with Godbole teaches a sensor arrangement according to claim 15 wherein the second module L1 houses a circuit board 28 and the at least one ground spike 102 but in combination with Godbole teaches the modified Shakoor’s spike extends into the second module L1 and connects directly to the circuit board.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1 and Berry, US 20180242531 A1.
Claim 17
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the modular housing is configured to float.
Berry in fig.3 teaches the modular housing is configured to float (¶0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Berry’s system for Shakoor‘s modular housing to float as taught by Berry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to actuate it for reaching to a predetermined level (¶0038).
Claim 17 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1 and Schmidt, Schmidt, Wiebke, et al. "Design and operation of a low-cost and compact autonomous buoy system for use in coastal aquaculture and water quality monitoring." Aquacultural engineering 80 (2018): 28-36.
Claim 17
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the modular housing is configured to float.
Schmidt in fig.3 teaches the modular housing is configured to float (monitoring buoy fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schmidt’s system for Shakoor‘s modular housing to float as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a monitoring near surface without disturbing the operations.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1 and Park, US 20130204581 A1.
Claim 18
Shakoor in view of Lee discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the first module U1 houses a circuit board 28 but does not teach orientated substantially vertically to prevent pooling of condensation.
Park in fig.8 teaches a circuit board 40 vertically to prevent pooling of condensation (function met by the vertical circuit board of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Park’s circuit board for Shakoor’s electronic vertically to prevent pooling of condensation as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art knows different configurations for circuit board and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compatible with the design criteria.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 For citations, please see reproduced drawings of fg.9 by the office