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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are amended, while claims 16-20 are added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of independent claim 1 and the 103 rejection of independent claim 15 are moot based on a new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 10073074 B1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 11428714 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses [Note: what Kumar fails to disclose is strike-through]
A measurement device configured to measure an amount of moisture contained in a medium (see col. 1, lines 47-48, “a sensor which can measure local soil conditions like moisture”), the measurement device comprising:
a first probe (see Fig. 9, 5-pronged sensor embedded in soil; col. 14, lines 34-39, the prongs are electronically connected to the on-board circuit);
a second probe (see Fig. 9, 5-pronged sensor embedded in soil; col. 14, lines 34-39, the prongs are electronically connected to the on-board circuit); and
a standard member that is fixed at a predetermined positional relationship with the first probe and the second probe during measurement, the standard member being electrically connectable to the first connection cable and the second connection cable when the measurement is not being conducted, and being configured to calibrate the measurement (see Fig. 9, board connected to the sensor; col. 14, lines 34-39, the prongs are electronically connected to the on-board circuit; col 14, lines 47-50, “The data recorded by the on-board circuit is transmitted to a receiver which first calculates the a, b and c calibration constants and then calculates the soil impedance”),
Yamada discloses
a first probe having a first cable embedded therein (see Fig. 2, probe 21; col. 6, lines 23-25, “the transmission probe 21 and the reception probe 22 are each constituted of a coaxial cable that includes a core wire portion C1 and a shield portion C2.”),
a second probe having a second cable embedded therein (see Fig. 2, probe 22; col. 6, lines 23-25, “the transmission probe 21 and the reception probe 22 are each constituted of a coaxial cable that includes a core wire portion C1 and a shield portion C2.”)
wherein the first probe and the second probe are each provided at an outside perimeter of the standard member (see Fig. 18, probes 421 and 422 are outside perimeter of elements 420, 430, and 410).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yamada into the invention of Kumar. Both Kumar and Yamada are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose soil moisture detection methods and systems with antennas. Kumar discloses a measurement device, a first probe electrically connected to a cable, a second probe electrically connected to a cable, and a fixed standard member connected to cables and configured to calibrate measurements; however, Kumar fails to disclose a cable embedded in the probes and the probes being on an outside perimeter of the standard member. This feature is disclosed by Yamada where the probes have cables embedded in them and they are placed on the outside perimeter of the standard. The combination of Kumar and Yamada would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure data connection with a wired coupling and improve data collection by having the probes reach further into the soil than the standard is able to.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 1, further comprising a switching unit configured to selectively switch connections between: (1) the first connection cable and either the first probe or the standard member; and (2) the second connection cable and either the second probe or the standard member (see Fig. b5, SP2T RF switch with two outputs that connect to the antenna probes).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 2, wherein the switching unit includes:
a first switching unit configured to switch the connection between the first connection cable and either the first probe or the standard member (see Fig. 5, SP2T RF switch with two outputs that connect to the antenna probes); and
a second switching unit configured to switch the connection between the second connection cable and either the second probe or the standard (see Fig. 4, SP4T switch; Fig. 8, SP4T switch connects to sensor probes).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 3, wherein the standard member includes an open standard, a short standard, and a reflection-free termination and includes: a first terminal for connection to the open standard; a second terminal for connection to the short standard; a third terminal for connection to the reflection-free termination; and a pair of fourth terminals for direct connection to the first connection cable and the second connection cable (see Fig. 4, SP4T (Single-Pole-4-Throw) switch with four terminals; col. 5, lines 49-50, the device uses standard short-open-load technique; Fig. 8, SP4T switch connects to sensor probes).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 4, wherein the first switching unit is configured to selectively connect the first connection cable to one of the first probe, the first to third terminals, or one of the pair of fourth terminals, and the second switching unit is configured to selectively connect the second connection cable to the second probe or to the other one of the pair of fourth terminals (see Fig. 8, SP2T switch and SP4T switch can connect to each other as well as the sensor probes).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 4, wherein the first probe, the second probe, the standard member, the first switching unit, and the second switching unit are provided in a same housing (see Fig. 1B, housing element 30; abstract discloses that antenna and measurement circuit are disposed within the housing).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 6, wherein the first switching unit, the first to the pair of fourth terminals, and the second switching unit are arranged in a symmetrical configuration (see Fig. 4, switch outputs are symmetrical; Fig. 5, switch outputs are symmetrical).
Regarding claim 16, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. Yamada further discloses
wherein the first probe and the second probe are between 75 to 150 millimeters (mm) in length, 3 to 30 mm in thickness (see col. 6, lines 23-28, “The transmission probe 21 and the reception probe 22 are each constituted of a coaxial cable that includes a core wire portion C1 and a shield portion C2. The thickness and the length of the cable are not particularly limited, and the cable may have an arbitrary thickness and an arbitrary length”) and spaced apart between 25 to 75mm (see col. 7, lines 39-41, “The size of the distance D between the transmission probe 21 and the reception probe 22 is not particularly limited, and is, for example, from 20 mm to 100 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yamada into the invention of Kumar. Kumar fails to disclose a length, thickness, or space apart of the probes. This feature is disclosed by Yamada where the probes can vary in length and thickness, as well as the distance between them. The combination of Kumar and Yamada would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use a manufactured device with existing dimensions in order to keep manufacturing costs low, or to manufacture a device of a specific size in order to fit size constraints of the soil being measured.
Regarding claims 17-20, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 2-5 are applied.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 10073074 B1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 11428714 B2) and further in view of Williams et al. (US 11533105 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses [Note: what Kumar fails to disclose is strike-through]
The measurement device according to claim 1, further comprising a coefficient calculation unit configured to:
determine, as a reflection coefficient, a ratio between complex amplitudes of an incident wave (see Fig. 8, microprocessor unit; col. 12, lines 34-38, “During the calibration phase, the microprocessor uses these values to calculate the coefficients a, b and c… it uses the a, b, c coefficients to find out the reflection coefficient”; see col. 10 equations for ratio of incident and reflected waves used to calculate reflection coefficient;) transmitted to the first probe through the first cable (see Fig. 2, port 3 inputs to quadrature demodulator; Fig. 8, quadrature demodulator connects to sensor probe; col. 10, line 27, “port 3 couples with the incident signal”), and a reflected wave obtained from reflection of the incident wave at the first probe (see Fig. 2, port 3 inputs to quadrature demodulator; Fig. 8, quadrature demodulator connects to sensor probe; col. 10, line 26, “port 4 couples with the reflected signal”); and
a calibration unit configured to calibrate the reflection coefficient and the transmission coefficient according to calibration factors determined by using the standard member (see Fig. 1B, measurement circuit element 34; col. 9, lines 4-5, “The measurement circuit 34 is preferably configured for self-calibration”; col. 18, lines 17-20, in calibration mode the device calculates the calibration parameters that correlate to the coefficients); and
a processing unit configured to determine an amount of moisture contained in the medium based on the calibrated reflection coefficient and the calibrated transmission coefficient (see Fig. 8, microprocessor unit; col. 18, lines 27-30, the “coefficient value is then used to determine …the soil contents (moisture and nutrients)”).
Williams discloses
determine, as a transmission coefficient, a ratio between complex amplitudes of the incident wave and a transmitted wave (see Fig. 2, transmission coefficient element 202 measured by the device; Fig. 4A, complex plot 400 of the forward transmission coefficient measured by the device) obtained through the medium between the first probe and the second probe;
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Williams into the inventions of Kumar and Yamada. Kumar and Williams are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar transmission devices with built in self-calibration capabilities that calibrate and correct measurement errors by determining the coefficients of waves. Yamada and Williams are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obtaining measurements with a probe and transmission line. Kumar and Yamada disclose all the structural elements of claim 1. Kumar further discloses determining the reflection coefficient, and the calibrating and processing steps to accurately determine moisture; however, Kumar and Yamada fail to disclose determining the transmission coefficient. This feature is disclosed by Williams where the device measures the transmission coefficient in addition to the reflection coefficient. The combination of Kumar, Yamada, and Williams would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create more accurate measurements for the device to be able to self-calibrate, leading to reduced costs by avoiding “a costly on-site technician visit” (see Williams col. 2, line 29), as well as improved measurement accuracy for the device determining moisture content.
Regarding claim 9, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 8, wherein the first probe, the second probe, and the standard member are housed together as a sensor device (see Fig. 1B, antenna and measurement circuit inside of housing element 30).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 9, wherein the coefficient calculation unit, the calibration unit, and the processing unit are housed together as a signal processing device (see Fig. 1B, measurement circuit within housing element 30; Fig. 8 for example sensor processing structure).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 10, wherein the sensor device and the signal processing device are integrated within a single housing (see Fig. 1B, all elements enclosed within housing element 30).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 10, wherein the sensor device and the signal processing device are disposed in separate housings (see col. 7, lines 16-17, another embodiment of the invention may include “an antenna disposed on the outside of one of the faces of the housing”).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of sensor devices are connected to the signal processing device (see Fig. 1B and Fig. 8, all elements connected to each other; col. 7, lines 18-19, the measurement circuit is connected to the antenna).
Regarding claim 14, Kumar further discloses
The measurement device according to claim 13, wherein the signal processing device is configured to perform radio communications (see col. 7, lines 9-13, the device can communicate at frequencies ranging from 200 KHz (or less) to 500 MHz (or more)).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited sections and rationales from claim 1 and claim 8 are applied. Kumar further discloses
A measuring method for a measurement device (see col. 7, lines 35-36, “a method for acquiring measurement data”),
the method comprising:
a calculating step of transmitting incident waves to the standard member through the first connection cable in a predetermined order (see col. 7, lines 39-43, “a measurement circuit… operatively connected to the antenna, the circuit configured to measure impedance at a plurality of different frequencies using the antenna as a sensor electrode”; col. 14, lines 9-16, the transmission line is connected in a consecutive and sequential cycle) and calculating calibration factors based on measurement data sequentially measured through the second connection cable (see col. 7, lines 58-60, “The method may further include performing a self calibration of the measurement circuit using the known impedance”);
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 ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648