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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings for the method of claim 1, and the system of claim 11, and the implantable post of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “VOCs” should be --Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)-- to define the acronym VOC.
In claim 1, line 5, “at least one VOC” should be --the at least one VOC-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line11, there should be a semicolon “;” in the end of the line.
In claim 1, lines 12-16, “producing said data for analysis in i) by: a) disposing a gas sensing element comprising a single wall-carbon nanotube. on a solid object; b) collecting at least one gas sample from said gas sensing element to produce said data from said gas sensing element interacting with a VOC” should be --wherein said data for analysis in i) is produced by: a) disposing a gas sensing element comprising a single wall-carbon nanotube. on a solid object; and b) collecting at least one gas sample from said gas sensing element to produce said data from said gas sensing element interacting with a VOC-- for better clarity.
In claim 2, line 1, “The method of claim 1 further” should be --The method of claim 1, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 3, line 1, “The method of claim 2 wherein” should be --The method of claim 2, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 4, line 1, “The method of claim 3 further” should be --The method of claim 3, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 5, line 1, “The method of claim 2 wherein” should be --The method of claim 2, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “tagging and memorializing said second signature as being associated with said condition of iii)” should be --the method further comprises tagging and memorializing said second signature as being associated with said condition of iii)-- for better clarity.
In claim 6, line 1, “The method of claim 1 further” should be --The method of claim 1, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 7, line 1, “The method of claim 1 further” should be --The method of claim 1, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 8, line 1, “The method of claim 1 further” should be --The method of claim 1, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 9, line 1, “The method of claim 8 wherein” should be --The method of claim 8, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 10, line 1, “The method of claim 1 wherein” should be --The method of claim 1, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 11, line 6, “VOCs” should be --Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)-- to define the acronym VOC.
In claim 12, line 1, “The system of claim 11 wherein” should be --The system of claim 11, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 12, line 1, “at least one nanosensing element” should be --at least one nanosensing element in plurality of nanosensing elements-- for better clarity.
In claim 13, line 1, “The system of claim 11 wherein” should be --The system of claim 11, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 14, line 1, “The system of claim 11 further” should be --The system of claim 11, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 15, line 1, “The system of claim 14 wherein” should be --The system of claim 14, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 16, line 1, “The system of claim 15 wherein” should be --The system of claim 15, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 17, line 1, “VOC” should be --Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-- to define the acronym VOC.
In claim 18, line 1, “The post of claim 17 wherein” should be --The post of claim 17, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 19, line 1, “The post of claim 17 wherein” should be --The post of claim 17, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 20, line 1, “The post of claim 17 wherein” should be --The post of claim 17, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 21, line 1, “The post of claim 20 wherein” should be --The post of claim 20, wherein-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 22, line 1, “The post of claim 17 comprising” should be --The post of claim 17, further comprising-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 23, line 1, “The post of claim 17 further” should be --The post of claim 17, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
In claim 24, line 1, “The post of claim 23 further” should be --The post of claim 23, further-- to properly incorporate its linking claim.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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 11-15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0137476 A1; cited previously); in view of Zamborini (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0225337 A1; cited previously).
Regarding claim 11, Davis teaches a system for detecting and analyzing factors that affect at least one crop of interest (Davis: Abstract.), said system comprising:
i) a data processor…(Davis: ¶¶39-40 [“…data structures and code described in this detailed description are typically stored on a computer-readable storage medium, which may be any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by a computer system. The computer-readable storage medium includes, but is not limited to, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, magnetic and optical storage devices such as disk drives…”]).
ii) a plurality of sensing elements interfaced with said data processor to deliver data thereto, said plurality of sensing elements comprising multiple sensing elements sensitive to one or more VOCs being in close proximity to the sensing element (Davis: FIG. 1; ¶48; FIGS. 2, 7A-7B; ¶50, {Including tables.} {See above.});
iii) a memory center receiving output from said data processor, said memory center memorializing a library of signatures indicative of a condition selected from the group consisting of: a stage of growth or development of said crop; a pest capable of attacking said crop; a microbiome associated with said crop, hydration status of said crop, an organism competing for space or nutrition with said crop, a defense signal release from said crop, a chemical attractant for a pest, a defensive chemical emitted by a pest, and response of said crop to one or more infestation mitigating strategies (Davis: FIGS. 3A-3F, 4A-4B, 5A-5E, 6A-6I; ¶¶44-48 [“The database of disease-specific biomarkers can be expanded to include a variety of pathogens, and the database can be further updated when new biomarkers are discovered.”]; FIG. 2; ¶49 [“the system applies a partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) model to the VOC profile to determine probability values for each possible HLB infection status, wherein applying the PLS-DA model involves multiplying the measured value for each disease-specific biomarker in the VOC profile with a corresponding coefficient obtained from one or more tables of coefficients for the disease-specific biomarkers (step 206).”]; FIGS. 3A-3F, 4A-4B, 5A-5E, 6A-6I; ¶¶44-46 {See above.}; FIG. 2 ¶¶44-46, ¶49 [“The database of disease-specific biomarkers can be expanded to include a variety of pathogens, and the database can be further updated when new biomarkers are discovered.”]).
However, Davis fails to explicitly teach a nanosensing element.
Zamborini, in an analogous art, discloses sensors and methods for detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by determining the conductivity of a chemiresistant film upon exposure to VOCs (Zamborini: Abstract). Therein, Zamborini teaches nanosensing elements nanosensitive to one or more VOCs being in close proximity to the nanosensing element (Zamborini: ¶34 [“…a sensor for detecting VOCs is provided. In some embodiments, the sensor comprises an electrically insulating support, at least two electrodes positioned at a distance from one another and affixed to the support; and, a chemiresistant film deposited at least between the electrodes and comprising surfactant-coated metal alloy nanoparticles…]; ¶38 [“An exemplary sensor of the presently disclosed subject matter typically comprises at least two electrodes. The phrase "at least two electrodes" is used herein to refer to two or more electrodes that are positioned at a distance from one another such that the current running between the two electrodes can be measured. In some embodiments, the distance between the electrodes is about 100 nanometers to about 1 millimeter. In some embodiments, the distance between the electrodes is about 23 micrometers.”]; FIG. 1; ¶63 [“FIG.1 shows a chronoamperometry (CA) plot (current versus time) for a selected film of TOABr-coated Au nanoparticles and films of C6H13S-coated Au nanoparticles during exposure to methanol, ethanol, 2-propanol (IPA), and toluene from 15% down to 0.27% saturationinN2 carrier gas. This sensor demonstrates great sensitivity to vapor analytes with detection limits of 12, 2, 3, and 37 parts per million (ppm) achieved for ethanol, methanol…”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the feature of providing a nanosensing element, disclosed by Zamborini, into Davis, with the motivation and expected benefit of utilizing nanosensors which may be adapted for diverse environments, to provide a tracking system that enables early warning and early response mechanisms relating to changes in an observed location of interest, including an observable change in electron flow (current). This method for improving Davis was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zamborini. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Zamborini to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites limitations found within claim 11, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11.
Additionally regarding claim 17, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 11 as shown above. Davis additionally discloses an implantable post supporting VOC sensing elements at multiple heights (Davis: FIGS. 7A-7E; ¶50 [“…this apparatus provides an all-in-one device, which enables an SBSE bead 706 (or other packaged or pre-formed sorbent) to be easily manipulated and transported inside a sealed vial 702 from the laboratory to a plant, a grove or a post-harvest location. The apparatus can then be hung inside the plant foliage or in close proximity to an agricultural product while providing a perforated encapsulation 704 comprising a protective inert mesh…”]).
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites limitations found within claim 11 as well as claim 17, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of claims 11 and 17.
Regarding claim 12, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 11 as shown above. Zamborini discloses at least one nanosensing element comprises a VOC interactive surface selected from the group consisting of: semi-conducting nano-wires, carbon nano-tubes (Zamborini: ¶008 [“…chemiresistors, metal-oxides [7,22,23], carbon-black polymers [8], carbon nanotubes (CNTs)…”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the feature of providing a nanotubes element, disclosed by Zamborini, into Davis, as modified by Zamborini, with the motivation and expected benefit of utilizing nanosensors which may be adapted for diverse environments, to provide a tracking system that enables early warning and early response mechanisms relating to changes in an observed location of interest, including an observable change in electron flow (current). This method for improving Davis was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zamborini. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Zamborini to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 11 as shown above. Zamborini discloses at least one nanosensing element (Zamborini: FIG. 1; ¶34, ¶38, ¶63 {See above.}). Davis discloses plurality of sensors disposed at a variety of heights selected from the group consisting of: subterranean, stalk height, stem height, leaf height, and above crop height (Davis: FIGS. 7A-7E; ¶50 [“…this apparatus provides an all-in-one device, which enables an SBSE bead 706 (or other packaged or pre-formed sorbent) to be easily manipulated and transported inside a sealed vial 702 from the laboratory to a plant, a grove or a post-harvest location. The apparatus can then be hung inside the plant foliage or in close proximity to an agricultural product while providing a perforated encapsulation 704 comprising a protective inert mesh…”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the feature of providing a plurality of nanosensors disposed at a variety of heights selected from the group consisting of: subterranean, stalk height, stem height, leaf height, and above crop height, disclosed by Davis and Zamborini, into Davis, as modified by Zamborini, with the motivation and expected benefit of utilizing nanosensors which may be adapted for diverse environments, to provide a tracking system that enables early warning and early response mechanisms relating to changes in an observed location of interest, including an observable change in electron flow (current). This method for improving Davis, as modified by Zamborini, was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Davis and Zamborini. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Zamborini to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites limitations found within claim 13, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 11 as shown above. Zamborini discloses at least one nanosensing element (Zamborini: FIG. 1; ¶34, ¶38, ¶63 {See above.}). Davis discloses an interface between multiply disposed arrays of nanosensing elements (Davis: FIGS. 7C-7D; ¶52 [“…the SBSE-protective apparatus is deployed in situations where abundances of specific compounds need to be measured in situ. The protective apparatus is interfaced with a brown vial containing an SBSE bead supplied by GERSTEL GmbH & Co. KG, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany…”]).
Regarding claim 15, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 14 as shown above. Davis discloses an interface between multiply disposed arrays of nanosensing elements (Davis: ¶¶39-40; FIG. 1; ¶48; FIGS. 2, 7A-7B; ¶50 {See above.});
Regarding claim 18, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 17 as shown above. Zamborini discloses at least one nanosensing element (Zamborini: FIG. 1; ¶34, ¶38, ¶63 {See above.}). Davis discloses an interface between multiply disposed arrays of nanosensing elements (Davis: FIGS. 7A-7E; ¶¶50-52 [“…the SBSE-protective apparatus is deployed in situations where abundances of specific compounds need to be measured in situ. The protective apparatus is interfaced with a brown vial containing an SBSE bead supplied by GERSTEL GmbH & Co. KG, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany…”] {See above.}).
Additionally regarding claim 19, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 17 as shown above. Davis additionally discloses an implantable post supporting VOC sensing elements at multiple heights (Davis: FIGS. 7A-7E; ¶50 [“…this apparatus provides an all-in-one device, which enables an SBSE bead 706 (or other packaged or pre-formed sorbent) to be easily manipulated and transported inside a sealed vial 702 from the laboratory to a plant, a grove or a post-harvest location. The apparatus can then be hung inside the plant foliage or in close proximity to an agricultural product while providing a perforated encapsulation 704 comprising a protective inert mesh…”]).
Regarding claim 20, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 17 as shown above. Examiner takes official notice that while Davis, in view of Zamborini, doesn’t explicitly recite “said post is capped with an energy collector,” numerous different means for supplying power to a sensor are notoriously well-known, routine, and conventional in the art to which Applicant’s invention relates, prior to the date of invention.
Regarding claim 21, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 20 as shown above. Examiner takes official notice that while Davis, in view of Zamborini, doesn’t explicitly recite “a photocollector and a turbine,” numerous different means for supplying power to a sensor are notoriously well-known, routine, and conventional in the art to which Applicant’s invention relates, prior to the date of invention.
Regarding claim 22, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 17 as shown above. Davis means for telescoping the post (Davis: FIGS. 7A-7B; ¶53 [“Note that the removable designs illustrated in FIGS. 7A-7B provide a threaded attachment 708…”]).
Regarding claim 24, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 23 as shown above. Examiner takes official notice that while Davis, in view of Zamborini, doesn’t explicitly recite “a feature selected from the group consisting of: a communication portal, a video camera, a microphone, a thermometer, and a hydrometer,” Davis, in view of Zamborini, fully disclose numerous different means for communicating with, and receiving information from, the nanosensing elements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis; in view of Zamborini; and further in view of Postrel (WIPO | PCT Patent Publication WO 2022/099158 A1; cited previously).
Regarding claim 16, Davis, in view of Zamborini, teach all the limitations of the parent claim 15 as shown above. However, Davis, in view of Zamborini, fails to teach sensing elements are under direction of an organizer selected from the group consisting of: a collective of farmers, a farm bureau, a sponsoring organization, and a seed supplier.
Postrel, in an analogous art, discloses managing life sustaining bio-systems, both here on earth and in the exploration and colonization of space (Postrel: Abstract). Therein, Postrel teaches sensing elements which are under direction of an organizer selected from the group consisting of: a collective of farmers, a farm bureau, a sponsoring organization, and a seed supplier (Postrel: pg. 12, ln 21-30 [“…Multiple populations of devices may act in concert. For example, if a collective of farmers, a farm bureau, a sponsoring organization, a seed supplier, or other entity with shared interests installs systems in a plurality of sites or fields. …”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the feature of providing supervision sensing elements which are under direction of an organizer selected from the group consisting of: a collective of farmers, a farm bureau, a sponsoring organization, and a seed supplier, disclosed by Postrel, into Davis, as modified by Zamborini, with the motivation and expected benefit of closely observing crops to understand the extent of potential damage to the crops. This method for improving Davis, as modified by Zamborini, was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Postrel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Davis and Zamborini and Postrel to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered. Particularly, the arguments that Davis is invalid regarding the priority dates of 2018-04-11 and 2017-07-26 are not persuasive. The supports for the currently claimed features are not found in the priority documents dated 2018-04-11 or 2017-07-26. To the most, the Examiner found such supports in SN 63/110976, which has the filing date of 2020-11-06. Therefore, Davis is a valid prior art reference because its publication date and filing date are earlier than 2020-11-06.
Nevertheless, the prior art rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn because Davis does not teach or suggest the features: “said analyzing comprising associating at least one VOC with a concentration range of said at least one VOC,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Instead, Davis teaches associating the VOC with a “probability value” range.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 11-24 under 35 USC 103 haven been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As discussed above, Davis is a valid prior art reference. Also, under 35 USC 103, both the publication date and the filing date of Davis can be relied upon for the rejection.
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 JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights