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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0049] refers to Fig. 1B, but it seems to describe Fig. 1C;
[0054]: it is unclear which figure shows the OCP data;
[0055] refers to Fig. 1A and Fig. 3B, but it seems to describe Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B;
[0058]: it is unclear which figure shows the anodic peak;
[0059]: it is unclear which figure shows the cathodic wave;
[0060] refers to Fig. 2A and Fig. 5B, but it seems to describe Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1: “the soil assessment” is suggested to be “the health assessment of the soil” to be consistent with claims 1 and 6.
Claim 4, lines 1-2: “the first and second electrode” is suggested to be “the first electrode and second electrode”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of cyclic voltammograms" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of cyclic voltammetry values.”
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge (US 2019/0107509).
Regarding claim 1, Burge teaches a soil health monitoring method (¶3: to provide information concerning biochemical characteristics, such as microbial activity, of soil environments), comprising:
positioning a plurality of electrodes at below the surface of a soil (Fig. 1; ¶46: one or more indicator electrodes 1, 2, 3 within an environment, e.g., soil);
measuring an open circuit potential value of each of the plurality of electrodes (¶46: to measure the OCV between each of the indicator electrodes 1, 2, 3 and the reference electrode (cathode) 11; ¶23: open-circuit voltage (OCV));
positioning a first electrode and a second electrode (Fig. 4; e.g., ¶51: cathode 41; ¶52: indicator electrode 48); and
measuring an electrochemical behavior (¶25: electrochemical analytical systems) resulting from one or more signals received from the first and the second electrode (¶52: the acquisition module 43 components include high-impedance potentiometer for measuring OCV between the indicator electrode 48 and the cathode 41) to provide a health assessment of the soil (¶37: potentiometric signals are the open-circuit voltages (OCV) measured between a reference electrode and each of the indicator electrodes; potentiometric signals are typically used to determine biochemical characteristics (e.g., potentiometric signal correlates with reduction-oxidation, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved carbon, and other biochemical characteristics) of a soil; [Abstract]: monitoring the health of plants including nutrients, salinity, contaminants, chemicals and disease; further, the designation “to provide a health assessment of the soil” is the intended result of the step of “measuring an electrochemical behavior” and does not require steps to be performed, and thus it is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04).
Burge does not disclose the measurements of OCV of each of plurality of electrodes so as to indicate an area of maximum microbial activity area in the soil and then the two electrodes are positioned within the indicated area of maximum microbial activity area.
However, Burge teaches the microbial sensing system including one or more indicator electrodes 1, 2, 3 placed at various vertical and horizontal locations within an environment, allowing the characterization of a soil/sediment profile of various environment locations 14, 15, 16 (Fig. 1; ¶46). Further, the microbial sensing system can be used to monitor a subsurface soil 53 and the soils adjacent to a root system 54 (rhizosphere) of a plant 44 (Fig. 4; ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to determine an area of maximum microbial activity for which the microbial sensing system is used as suggested because the maximum microbial activity area would be beneficial and best option for growing a plant in the soil environment and monitoring the rhizosphere of the plant during its growth.
Regarding claim 5, the designation “wherein the presence of microbes attached to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode indicates healthy soil” does not further limit the method as claimed because it does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight, and this designation not requiring steps to be performed does not further limit claim scope. MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 11, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1, including wherein the positioning of the first electrode and the second electrode within the area of maximum microbial activity includes being configured as part of a potentiostat (Fig. 1: 10; ¶7: high-impedance potentiometer).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Miller (WO 2021/245202), and further in view of Masao (JP 2007192604, using a machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 2, Burge discloses all limitations of method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the soil assessment includes measuring a plurality of chronoamperometric values and a plurality of cyclic voltammetry values; and observing a change in the plurality of chronoamperometric values and the plurality of cyclic voltammetry values.
However, Miller teaches a solid-state soil nutrient sensor (p. 2, l. 14). The sensor are electrochemical in nature (p. 11, l. 15), using open circuit potential, potentiometry or chronopotentiometry to detect the nutrient of interest (p. 15, l. 17-18). The soil can develop a complex and unpredictable nutrient profile, which varies both spatially and with time, and measuring this unpredictable distribution of soil nutrients would have the ability to continuously monitor nutrient concentrations (p. 11, para. 2). Further, Masao teaches a soil diagnostic sensor ([Abstract]) that determines whether or not a soil is causing disease using microorganisms (p1, para. 3). The activity of microorganisms is obtained by measuring redox ability, respiration, etc. (p. 3, para. 9). The soil is measured electrochemically, such as chronoamperometry, cyclic voltammetry, or the like (p. 3, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to incorporating measurements of a plurality of chronoamperometric values as taught by Miller and a plurality of cyclic voltammetry values as taught by Masao and observing them with time as suggested by Miller because both chronoamperometric and cyclic voltammetric measurements are suitable electrochemical measurements for monitoring the soil environment, such as nutrients, microorganisms, which are representative conditions of the soil for a plant. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Further, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(C).
Regarding claim 3, Burge, Miller, and Masao disclose all limitations of claim 2. Burge teaches the surface of the microbial sensor 144 can be covered with a nutrient and or chemical coating 143, which become populated with a biofilm 142 (Burge, Fig. 9; ¶64). Thus, the chronoamperometric measurements as disclosed by Miller for determining soil nutrient profile (p. 11, para. 2) would be inherently from the electrochemically active biofilms.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Cooper (US 2009/0198117).
Regarding claim 4, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1 and the microbial sensing system including two electrodes coupled to a high-impedance potentiometer (¶7), which would having a voltage applied between two electrodes. Burge fails to teach polarizing the first and second electrode anodically.
However, Cooper teaches a potentiometric biosensor, e.g., a glucose sensor, which may determine the glucose concentration by polarizing the working electrode either anodically or cathodically (¶41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to polarizing the electrodes anodically for operating the potentiometer as taught by Cooper because potentiometric measurement of a sensor can be obtained by polarizing the electrodes either anodically or cathodically and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(E).
The designation “to provide the health assessment” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step of “polarizing the first and second electrode anodically.” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, this designation is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Miller, and further in view of Liu (CN 113030441, using its family patent publication US 2022/0308036 for citation).
Regarding claim 6, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach generating a Soil Health Index (SHI), wherein the SHI includes at least one of: a current based soil health index, a charge-based health index, and a complex soil health index.
However, Miller teaches a solid-state soil nutrient sensor (p. 2, l. 14). The sensor are electrochemical in nature (p. 11, l. 15), using open circuit potential (the same measurement as disclosed by Burge), for measuring the voltage or current produced by the sensor (p. 15, ll. 17-19). The soil nutrient sensor may measuring the nutrient-concentration gradient, such as potassium ion (p. 11, ll. 5-7). Liu teaches soil assessment for generating a soil health assessment (¶2) using indicator measurements (¶20). The soil function index system include indicators, such as nutrition regulation indicators, such as a microbial group, biomass, and activity (¶21), and total potassium information (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to generate a soil health index, such as nutrition indicator (e.g., Liu ¶22: total potassium information) as taught by Liu using the measurement values, such as current produced by the sensor (Miller, p. 11, ll. 4-7; p. 15, ll. 18-19), as taught by Miller because the microbial monitoring of soil surrounding a plant would be representative for health assessment of the soil to determining whether it is cultivable for the plant. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Shibata (US 2021/0010993).
Regarding claims 7-9, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach introducing into the soil, a soil amendment solution to stimulate current to assess microbial activity (claim 7) or wherein the soil amendment solution is a carbon source (claim 8) or wherein the carbon source is selected from at least one of glucose and malic acid (claim 9).
However, Shibata teaches using chemical and/or biological-based ingredients to crops and/or soil in order to enhance plant growth, health, and overall productivity (¶2), for example, using a carbon source for supplementing the cultivation, typically using a carbohydrate, such as glucose (¶245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to incorporating a soil amendment solution containing a carbon source, such as glucose, as taught by Shibata because the carbon source would supplement the cultivation for the plant and be observable due to change the current produced by the microbial monitoring sensor. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Masao.
Regarding claim 10, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach utilizing the plurality of cyclic voltammograms to measure redox variations by depth to determine conditions for the enrichment of anodic electrochemically active biofilms (EABs).
However, Masao teaches a soil diagnostic sensor ([Abstract]) that determines whether or not a soil is causing disease using microorganisms (p1, para. 3). The activity of microorganisms is obtained by measuring redox ability, respiration, etc. (p. 3, para. 9). The soil is measured electrochemically, such as chronoamperometry, cyclic voltammetry, or the like (p. 3, para. 5). Further, Burge teaches the electrochemical measurements using indicator electrodes at different depths within the soil to determine conditions for the enrichment of anodic (Fig. 1; ¶11: indicator electrodes (anodes); Fig. 5; ¶55: abides 63m 64m 65) electrochemically active biofilms (EABs) (¶26: the surface of the indicator electrode, after insertion in the soil, can become populated with a biofilm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge by substituting the OCV measurements with cyclic voltammetric measurements as taught by Masao because cyclic voltammetric measurements is suitable and alternative electrochemical measurements for monitoring the soil environment, such as nutrients, microorganisms, which are representative surrounding conditions of the soil for a plant. As a result, the combined Burge and Masao would necessarily result in measuring redox variations by depth of the soil (Burge, Fig. 1) to determine conditions for the enrichment of anodic electrochemically active biofilms (¶26) using the plurality of cyclic voltammograms (Masao, p. 3, para. 5). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Further, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(C).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 12, Burge discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach generating 3D distributions to indicate the existence of microbial gradients and hotspots in the soil.
However, Miller teaches a solid-state soil nutrient sensor (p. 2, l. 14) with the ability to measure a spatial profile of soil nutrients (p. 11, l. 4) so that the measured unpredictable distribution of soil nutrients sensed by an array of soil sensors would have the ability to continuously monitor nutrient concentrations (p. 11, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to incorporating the step of generating 3D distributions as taught by Miller because the nutrient profile is complex and unpredictable, which varied both spatially and with time, and the ability to measure the spatial profile of soil nutrients is advantageous to continuously monitor this unpredictable nutrient concentrations (p. 11, para. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795