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.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 6/22/26, has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13-14, 16-21, 23-25 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding Lee have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The limitation is “threaded arrangements for coupling the upper and lower modules”. Lee teaches : Upper and lower modules. The modules are coupled/released using threaded arrangements. The proposed rejection would be: Modify the coupling arrangement of Shakoor by using the threaded coupling arrangement of Lee., and as cited before, Replacing the detachable coupling mechanism of Shakoor with the threaded coupling mechanism of Lee is merely a substitution of one known coupling technique for another, producing the predictable result of releasably attaching the modules. see MPEP 2143(B). Furthermore, Under MPEP §2141.01(a), a reference is analogous art if it is either:
1. From the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or
2. Reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
In this case, although Lee is not in the plant field, the relevant problem is not necessarily "sensor arrangement for a controlled agriculture environment for growing plants or how to measure plants." The relevant problem is about: How to releasably attach and detach two modules/components. If Lee addresses that same type of mechanical problem, then Lee is reasonably pertinent. Although Lee relates to a different application, Lee is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention because it teaches a known solution for releasably coupling two components through threaded engagement. A skilled artisan seeking to provide a detachable connection between the upper and lower modules of Shakoor would have considered known mechanical coupling techniques, including the threaded arrangement of Lee. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second module is watertight and buoyant”.
The specification never actually describes a distinct "buoy shape" let alone to , “a second module buoyant” . Specification discloses (¶0035 and 0067 of PG-PUB of instant application): housing (10) "may float on the growing medium" — but this is presented as one of several possible deployment options, alongside being fixed via ground spikes (70) or suspended via a chain (80). It's not inherently or exclusively a floating device; floating is a configurable choice depending on the growing medium (soil, liquid, etc.). Ground spikes (70) get real structural detail 1—Floating, by contrast, gets no structural elaboration at all — no airbag, no wing, no buoyant material specification, nothing, except for just asserted that the housing "may float on the growing medium" . Therefore, floating is asserted as a capability of the generic modular housing shape (dome/spherical/cylindrical/conical/cuboid, per ¶0031), without any dedicated float-enabling structure being disclosed. Furthermore ¶0034 cites: "it may be desirable to configure the housing 20 such that it can float...", ¶0067: "The sensor arrangement 10 may float on the growing medium...". Both statements attribute the floating capability to the whole housing (20) / the whole sensor arrangement (10) — not to the second module (40) specifically, and not to any individual module in isolation. Therefore: No module-specific buoyancy claim exists. The spec never discloses "the second module is buoyant" or "the second module floats while the first module stays above water." It's silent on how buoyancy would be distributed or achieved across the modular assembly. There is not support in the disclosure: if the whole housing floats as one unit, and the first module (30) sits at the "crown"/top with sensors like the light sensor needing to face upward (¶0035), while the second module (40) is described as sitting in the root zone (¶0033: "the second module 40 tends to carry sensors... associated with conditions in the growing medium") — the spec doesn't explain the mechanics of how one connected floating assembly would keep the first module's crown facing up and in the air, while the second module's root-zone sensors stay submerged in the liquid growing medium below. Since there's no dedicated buoyant material, airbag, or float-specific shape disclosed, and the buoyancy claim is made only at the whole-arrangement level.
And regarding watertight:
this is not supported by the disclosure. The document never uses the word "watertight" (or "waterproof") anywhere. What it does disclose are:
• Sealing arrangement (60) at the coupling between modules — explicitly stated to prevent "ingress of dust or humidity" (¶0032), not full water submersion
• Sealing arrangement (39) between the disc-shaped member (38) and the first module — protecting the internal sensor cluster from "environmental factors such as debris, plants and small animals (e.g. insects)" (¶0036)
Both of these are about dust, humidity, and debris protection at a joint or opening — not about surviving submersion or contact with liquid water, which is what "watertight" would require.
Therefore, the instant application discloses that sensor arrangement can optionally function as a buoy, but it is not described or claimed as watertight anywhere in the document. The two properties (floating capability and moisture/dust sealing at joints) are both present, but they're not the same thing, and the spec never bridges them with an explicit watertight claim — this limitation is not something could be cited directly from the spec, floating and watertight are two separate design properties, and most prior art establish one without explicitly claiming the other.
(as a side note: It also should be added that in second module 40, what exactly location of sensors are: on the second module or inside the second module (Not specified as strictly on or inside — spec only discloses they're "provided" on module 40 (¶0038); one or more "may double up as" or "form/be part of" ground spike (70) (¶0038,0067), in which case the sensor is physically embedded in the growing medium itself, wired via the spike's top (71) to circuit board (73) inside module 40 (¶0055, these facts emphasize that there is not connection established to support for functionality of a watertight float)
Claim 14: recites: spike that defines sensors within the spike. However based on the spec, ¶0038 and 0067, 0055:
• [0038]: "One or more of the sensors 210-240 may double up as a ground spike 70."
• [0067]: "At least one of the sensors 210-240 may form, or be part of, the ground spike 70 such that the ground spike 70 can both support the sensor arrangement 10 on the growing medium and sense parameters in the growing medium."
• [0055]: "at least one of the ground spikes 70 functions as a sensor and the top 71 of the at least one ground spike 70 connects directly to a circuit board 73 in the second module 40." it actually the sensor and spike are the same component. NOT sensor within the spike, it cites “spike doubles as sensor”.
The spike is the sensing element (or the sensor is the spike) — they're the same physical part performing two jobs (mechanical support + sensing), not a sensor placed inside a separate spike-shaped housing. The top (71) of the spike wires directly into a circuit board (73) located back in the second module — so the spike's tip/body does the actual sensing (likely by direct electrical/electrochemical contact with the growing medium, given the sensors involved are things like nutrient, oxygen, and moisture sensors), and it transmits that signal up through a direct wired connection to the circuit board. More accurately: the sensor and the spike are one and the same component — not "sensor inside spike" (implying a hollow spike housing an internal sensor), but "spike doubles as sensor" (the spike's own body/tip is the sensing surface). It's a fusion of the two functions into a single physical part, not a containment relationship. "sensor within a spike" and "spike that functions as a sensor" are structurally different claims, and only the second is supported by the spec.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experiments, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
There is no disclosure on what are the mechanisms for making the second module both watertight and buoyant, no airbag, no wing, no buoyant material specification. It's just asserted that the housing "may float,". How the device is floated but the sensors inside a watertight housing can be floating at the same time? Is it only its ball shape. No module-specific buoyancy claim exists. The spec never discloses "the second module is buoyant" or "the second module floats while the first module stays above water." It's silent on how buoyancy would be distributed or achieved across the modular assembly. There is not support in the disclosure: if the whole housing floats as one unit, and the first module (30) sits at the "crown"/top with sensors like the light sensor needing to face upward (¶0035), while the second module (40) is described as sitting in the root zone (¶0033: "the second module 40 tends to carry sensors... associated with conditions in the growing medium") — the spec doesn't explain the mechanics of how one connected floating assembly would keep the first module's crown facing up and in the air, while the second module's root-zone sensors stay submerged in the liquid growing medium below. Since there's no dedicated buoyant material, airbag, or float-specific shape disclosed, and the buoyancy claim is made only at the whole-arrangement level.
Turning to MPEP 2164.01(a), i.e. the Wands factors, Examiner finds the breath of the claims, the state of the prior art, direction provided, nature of the invention, level of ordinary skill, are sufficient evidences that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement, and undue experimentation would be required.
Remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 1-4, 7-9, and 13-21, 23-25 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 is not enabled and therefore it is not clear what it means by a second module is watertight and buoyant, what is a sensor to determine water properties and being buoy and also watertight.
For examination, and in light of the spec: it is interpreted floating is a configurable choice depending on the growing medium (soil, liquid, etc.), and there is no patentable weight given to a unclear limitation, therefore, it is taught based on search results in prior art for a watertight float on the growing medium or an watertight buoyant.
Also Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention (MPEP 2173), therefore, terms “may” and “can ” make claim indefinite. because it is not clear if the limitation after that is required or just optional (see MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)). Therefore, claim 1 also because of using term “can” and claim 25 for using “may” are indefinite. For examination, the limitation after “may” and “can” are interpreted as not required limitation.
Claim 14 is not supported by the spec, no clear meaning and therefore indefinite. "sensor within a spike" and "spike that functions as a sensor" are structurally different claims, and only the second is supported by the spec, therefore, the limitation is interpreted in the light of what is supported by the spec.
Remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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, 16, 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 and LI, CN 111820034 A.
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,U12) 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), wherein the modular housing includes at least one sensor (e.g., wind speed sensors 94) that can operate with rotational invariance by being positioned on the axis of rotation (although it is not required but this function is met by speed sensors 94).
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 1) by a threaded arrangement, 2) wherein the second module is watertight and buoyant.
Regarding limitation 1
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).
Regarding limitation 2
In the similar field of endeavor, LI in FIG.1 teaches a module is watertight and buoyant (see Abstract and all disclosure3 on waterproof box 7 and floating on the growing medium on floating frames 2,4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LI’s watertight and buoyant module for the modified Shakoor‘s sensor arrangement wherein the modified Shakoor’s second module is watertight and buoyant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage sensor measurements for sensing related to water planting systems.
ALTERNATIVELY:
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13, 16, 19-21, 23-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1 and Tauriac, US 20240076018 A1.
Claim 1
Shakoor discloses:
A sensor arrangement for a controlled agriculture environment for growing plants, the sensor arrangement comprising:
a modular housing (fig.9 200) comprising first (U2,U14) 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), wherein the modular housing includes at least one sensor (e.g., wind speed sensors 94) that can operate with rotational invariance by being positioned on the axis of rotation (although it is not required but this function is met by speed sensors 94).
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: (1) by a threaded arrangement, (2) wherein the second module is watertight and buoyant.
Regarding limitation 1
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).
Regarding limitation 2
Combination of buoyant and watertight sensor housing are known achievable engineering configuration in broader prior art: as an example:
In the similar field of endeavor, Tauriac in e.g., FIGs.1 and 2a,4 teaches a sensor module is watertight and buoyant (270 ,470 ¶0037-0039: watertight/sealing 402 outer shell of sensor array, 404 internal insulation, foam insulation buoyant 406, pressure port for buoyancy adjustment:418).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tauriac’s watertight and buoyant module for the modified Shakoor‘s sensor arrangement wherein the modified Shakoor’s second module is watertight and buoyant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage sensor measurements for sensing related to water planting systems.
Claim 2
Shakoor in view of Lee and LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 16
Shakoor in view of Lee combined with LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) teaches a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 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 19
Shakoor in view of Lee LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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), and wherein the CEA system may adjust one or more conditions throughout the whole of the CEA environment or at a local level only based on communications from the sensor arrangements of the individual modules (optional not required limitation/ but Shakoor in ¶0005,0006,0041 teaches irrigation/fertilization/pest-control as the named actuation targets, actual described GUI (FIGS. 14–16) letting a user view real-time/historic conditions and remotely control the irrigation/fertilization/pest-control equipment).
Claim 14 5is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1, WANG, and Godbole, US20210270791A1.
Claim 14
Shakoor in view of Lee LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) discloses a sensor arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the second module L1 is provided with at least one spike (102) but does not specifically teach that defines one or more sensors within the spike. In the similar field of endeavor, Godbole in fig.3 teaches one spike (102) but does not specifically teach that defines one or more sensors 340 within the spike 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 the modified Shakoor‘s spikes that defines one or more sensors within the spike 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 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakoor, US 20210045301 A1 in view of Lee, US 20220220650 A1, LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) and Berry, US 20180242531 A1.
Claim 17
Shakoor in view of Lee LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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, LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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 , LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) and Park, US 20130204581 A1.
Claim 18
Shakoor in view of Lee LI (ALTERNATIVE: TAURIAC) 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
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 e.g., ¶0038 discloses a sensor can "double up as" the spike itself, and ¶0067 elaborates that a sensor "may form, or be part of, the ground spike... such that the ground spike can both support the sensor arrangement... and sense parameters in the growing medium."
2 For citations, please see reproduced drawings of fg.9 by the office
3 English translation provided by the office
4 For citations, please see reproduced drawings of fg.9 by the office
5 The claim also is obvious over prior art of record BETHGE, DE 102018007341 A1, and case law
Prosecution Insights