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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 10-18 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.
With respect to Claim 10, line 13, “the endoscope” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the applicant intended for claim 10 to depend from claim 8, which has antecedent basis for the endoscope, or if the limitation is intended to be introduced in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN113186893, hereinafter CN.
With respect to Claim 1, CN discloses an in-situ testing instrument [see fig 1 unless otherwise noted] for soil moisture in a hole, comprising
a test bracket [9] extended into a hole [page 3, step 1],
a retracting and releasing mechanism [page 3, steps 1 and 2 indicate that 9 is raised and lowered via a pulley] used to drive the test bracket to rise and fall in the hole,
a moisture test mechanism [15] arranged on the test bracket [15 in figure 2 is a more detailed view of probe 12 from figure 1],
a plug-and-pull drive mechanism [1 and 4] used to drive the moisture test mechanism to insert into soil on a side of the hole or to be pulled out by the soil on a side of the hole [page 3, step 4], and
a signal receiving mechanism [3] arranged on a ground, wherein the signal receiving mechanism is electrically connected [via 2] with the moisture test mechanism [15].
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN in view of Hubmann (U.S. Patent No. 3,729,284, hereinafter Hubmann) and Chan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0079997, hereinafter Chan) and KR950004638, hereinafter KR and CN205474477, hereinafter CN2.
With respect to Claim 10, CN discloses a testing method by using the in-situ testing instrument according to claim 1, comprising the following steps:
S1, drilling a hole in an area to be detected [page 3; step 1, “the soil is cut through the cutting element];
S2, placing the retracting and releasing mechanism [1] on the ground corresponding to the hole, and placing the test bracket [9] inside the hole [page 3; step 1, lowered into position by a pulley];
S3, turning on a power supply [the power supply for computer 3 needs to be turned on for CN to function], and lowering the test bracket until a probe on the test bracket reaches a first test depth [page 3 step 1 shows specific location; page 6, claim 5 shows testing multiple soil layers];
S4, driving a moisture sensor [15] to move in a direction towards a side wall of the hole by the mounting shell, until the probe of the moisture sensor is inserted into the inside of the side wall of the hole [see step 3 page 4], and stopping the hydraulic pump [1], at this time, reading moisture information of the soil at a current depth by the moisture sensor [15] and transmitting [via 2] the moisture information to a moisture sensor reader [3], after finishing reading, controlling the hydraulic pump, drawing back the probe to control the pump to stop running [although not explicit, the probe would have to be drawn back in order to measure multiple heights, or even to remove the device from the hole]; and
S5, rotating the rotating shaft again, lowering the test bracket until the probe on the test bracket reaches a second test depth, and repeating S4 until the test method is completed [claim 5 on page 6 shows repeating the test for another soil layer].
CN discloses rotating the rotating shaft [7] via a servo motor [10] rather than by a handle as claimed.
Hubmann shows that pulleys [20] can be driven by a crank handle [20’]. See fig 4 and column 4, lines 21-27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that CN’s motor 10 could be replaced by a crank handle if one didn’t wish to purchase and power a motor.
CN does not disclose observing by the endoscope until the probe of the moisture sensor is inserted into the inside of the side wall of the hole.
Consider that an endoscope is a camera on the end of a flexible rod.
Chan discloses using a camera to determine position within a hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that if CN wished to have extra confirmation that the humidity sensor is inserted into the soil, they could monitor via a camera.
CN discloses driving the probe into the soil via hydraulics rather than via gears as claimed. CN uses motor driven gears, but not for the extension of the probe.
CN2 shows that using gears to extend telescoping rods is well known. See page 1 “background technology”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that CN could use any known means to extend the moisture probe into the soil, including by using a motor and gears rather than hydraulics.
CN does not disclose that the moisture sensor moves via a C-type guide groove to enter the soil.
KR 950004638 shows a sensor moving on a C-shaped groove. See page 2, last full paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount CN’s probe on a C-type guide groove as it’s a known and reliable way to mount and move probes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claims 2 and 11, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace CNs test bracket with a series of mounting plates.
Claims 3-9 depend from claim 2. Claims 12-18 depend from claim 11
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2012/0068688 shows digging a hole and inserting spiky sensors into the sidewall at different heights.
U.S. Patent No. 5,479,104 shows a similar probe.
U.S. Patent No. 5,644,947 shows a downhole moisture sensor that is raised and lowered, that also pushes the sensor into the sidewall.
U.S. Patent No. 10,053,985, shows a sensor raised and lowered via a pulley.
U.S. Publication No. 2018/0352760 shows a sensor lowered into a dug hole, that inserts into a sidewall and connects via a wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855