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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 with respect to claims 72, 84 and 87 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ representative argues that Watson fails to discloses “a signal generator configured to produce a plurality of driving signals, each having a central frequency included in range extending from about 2KHz to about 200MHz”, asserting that Watson merely discloses a single free running oscillator frequency. However, Applicants characterization of Watson is unduly narrow and not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the pending claims. Watson expressly teaches an oscillator and tuned circuit arrangement in which the operating frequency varies according to the dielectric properties of the surrounding soil medium. Specifically, Watson discloses operation at frequencies “much lower than 27MHz” and behavior; leveling off “at a frequency of about 10 MHz”. further multiple operational models in which the tuned circuit varied such that different oscillator frequencies are produced and evaluated. Claim does not require simultaneous generation of signals, a frequency sweep, predetermined discrete frequencies or a separate signal source for each frequency. Rather, the claim broadly recites “a plurality of driving signals”, each having a central frequency within the claimed range. Under BRI, Watson’s oscillator operating in multiple modes and producing different operating frequencies responsive to tuned circuit conditions satisfies this limitation.
Applicant further argues that Watson does not discloses “a collection of differential measurements obtained at different frequencies”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Watson teaches obtaining measurements in different operating modes and comparing oscillator frequencies corresponding to different dielectric conditions of the soil medium. The cited disclosure therefor teaches measurements obtained at different frequencies and using differences between those measurements to determine characteristics of the medium, including dielectric constant, moisture and conductivity. Further, Watson’s sensor structure includes multiple conductive elements (21a, 22a) arranged on the probe body and operating as signal and ground elements. The Examiner maintains that these structures reasonable corresponds to the claimed ground coil and signal adapted to provide differential measurements.
Further applicants’ arguments attempt to import limitations from specification into the claims, including requirements for active frequency sweeping or intentionally generated discrete excitation frequencies. Such limitations are absent from claim and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 72, 77-78, 80-84 and 86-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Watson (U.S. Patent 5418466).
Regarding claim 72, Watson discloses a probe for analysing a soil located in an underground area (fig. 1 (10)), the probe comprising:
a tubular body having a bottom portion and a top portion (fig. 1 top and bottom of frame 11);
a circuit board mounted within the tubular body and being aligned with the bottom portion (fig. 1 (16));
a signal generator (fig. 2 (25)) operatively connected to the circuit board, the signal generator being configured to produce a plurality of driving signals, each driving signal having a central frequency comprised in a range extending from about 2 kHz to about 200 MHz (“At a frequency much lower than 27 MHz the complex dielectric constant of soils is approximately inversely proportional to the free running frequency of an oscillator connected into tuned circuit exposed to the soil medium which characteristically levels off at a frequency of about 10 MHz with dielectric values ranging from 5 to 30, depending on the density and moisture content of the soil medium”);
an antenna wrapping an outer surface of the bottom portion of the tubular body (fig. 1 (12)) and being operatively connected to the circuit board (fig. 1 (12 and 16)) and to the signal generator (fig. 2 (21, 22) connected to 25), the antenna being electromagnetically coupled with the soil when the probe is inserted in the underground area and being configured to produce an electric field upon reception of one of said plurality of driving signals (“the soil moisture/complex dielectric constant/salinity sensor apparatus and its associated electronic sensor characteristic detection and transmission circuits. Capacitive (21, 22) and inductive (23, 24) elements in various combinations form a L-C tuning network for oscillator circuit 25” “Each electronic circuit is also adapted to provide a signal representative of the moisture/complex dielectric constant and salinity of the surrounding soil which is then communicated to a data collection device 17 via multi-stranded cable 18. Preferably, the location of the data collection device 17 is adjacent to the in situ sensor apparatus so that the effect of signal loss and spurious signal interference is minimized on the cable 18” col. 10 lines 34-59), the antenna comprising a ground coil and a signal coil adapted to provide a differential measurement (fig. 3 (21a, 22b operate as signal and ground rings as part of sensor 12)); and
a measuring unit (“the soil moisture/complex dielectric constant sensor and its associated electronic circuit” col. 13 lines 26-30) operatively connected to the antenna (fig. 1 (12)) and being configured to determine a capacitance of the soil (“to measure soil moisture using capacitive elements was carried out at low frequencies” col. 7 lines 9-11), based on a collection of differential measurements obtained at different frequencies (“in a first mode of operation the oscillator frequency is representative of a first complex dielectric constant of the medium, and in a second mode of operation, the tuned circuit is varied-so that the oscillator frequency is representative of at least one second complex dielectric constant of the medium and the difference between an oscillator frequency of the first mode and an oscillator frequency of the second mode is representative of the conductivity of the medium” col.5 lines 41-50), the capacitance of the soil being representative of at least one characteristic of the soil (“in a first mode of operation the oscillator frequency is representative of a first complex dielectric constant of the medium, and in a second mode of operation, the tuned circuit is varied-so that the oscillator frequency is representative of at least one second complex dielectric constant of the medium and the difference between an oscillator frequency of the first mode and an oscillator frequency of the second mode is representative of the conductivity of the medium” col. Lines 5-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
777
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
515
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 77, Watson further discloses wherein the capacitance of the soil determined by the measuring unit is frequency independent (measured based on soil moisture content and/or soil salinity col. 14 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 78, Watson further discloses wherein the capacitance of the soil determined by the measuring unit is temperature independent (measured based on soil moisture content and/or soil salinity col. 14 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 80, Watson further discloses wherein the measuring unit and the processor are integrated to form a single measuring and processing module (“the soil moisture/complex dielectric constant/salinity sensor apparatus and its associated electronic sensor characteristic detection and transmission circuits” col. 10 lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 81, Watson further discloses a casing at least partially covering the bottom portion of the tubular body (fig. 1 (13)).
Regarding claim 82, Watson further discloses wherein the ground coil surrounds at least one of the circuit board and the signal generator (fig. 1 (12 around 16)).
Regarding claim 83, Watson further discloses wherein said at least one characteristic of the soil is selected from the group consisting of: permittivity, soil texture, clay content, loam content, sand content, bulk density, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), level of nutrients, level of available nutrients, ionic concentration of soil solution, temperature, moisture, soil water content, soil water potential and pH (measured based on soil moisture content and/or soil salinity col. 14 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 84, the method recited is intrinsic to the apparatus recited in claim 1, as disclosed Watson (U.S. Patent 5418466) as the recited method steps will be performed during the normal operation of the apparatus, as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 86, Watson further discloses wherein said at least one characteristic of the soil are selected from the group consisting of: permittivity, soil texture, clay content, loam content, sand content, bulk density, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), level of nutrients, level of available nutrients, ionic concentration of soil solution, temperature, moisture, soil water content, soil water potential and pH (measured based on soil moisture content and/or soil salinity col. 14 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 87, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Watson (U.S. Patent 5418466) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Watson further discloses at least one capacitive sensor, each capacitive sensor being mounted within the tubular body, in the bottom portion (Fig. 1 (12) at lower side “the primary sensor means comprises a capacitive element in the form of upper 21 and lower 22 conductive rings” col. 10 lines 59-65).
Regarding claim 88, Watson further discloses wherein said at least one capacitive sensor is a stack of capacitive sensors (fig. 1 (21, 21) upper lower plates).
Regarding claim 89, Watson further discloses wherein two subsequent capacitive sensors of the stack of capacitive sensors are separated by a distance of about 6 inches (air gap between 21, 22, “Any appreciable gap will artificially reduce the density of the soil surrounding the access tube” col. 10 lines 7-10)
Regarding claim 90, Watson further discloses a casing, wherein the antenna is entirely covered by the casing (fig. 1 (13) covering 12).
Regarding claim 91, Watson further discloses wherein the ground coil surrounds at least one of the circuit board and the signal generator (fig. 1 (12 around 16)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (U.S. Patent 5418466) in view of Lock (U.S. Publication 20080211521).
Watson discloses the claimed invention above except:
Regarding claim 79, Watson does not explicitly teach a processor configured to measure a phase change.
However, Lock teaching moisture content sensor teaches processor configured to measure a phase change (“he medium permittivity and moisture content, as well as conductivity and/or salinity may be measured, with the signal amplitude being more sensitive to the medium conductivity and signal phase more sensitive to the medium permittivity” [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lock in Watson to gain the advantage of a sensor with more linear response and significantly improved sensitivity [Lock [0020]].
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 92-93 are allowed
Reason for Allowance
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant amended independent claims 92-93 by adding the limitation of prior objected claim 73 and overcome rejection.
7. Claim 73 and 85 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:
None of the prior art of record discloses or teaches the claimed combinations, or feature includes a body positioned in the recess of the probe head with the following:
Re-claim 73, 85, a reference capacitor, wherein the differential measurement comprises: a first capacitance measurement, the first capacitance measurement being measured between the ground coil and the signal coil; a second capacitance measurement, the second capacitance measurement being measured between the reference capacitor and the ground coil; and a third capacitance measurement, the third capacitance measurement being measured between the reference capacitor and the signal coil.
Claims 75-76 are objected over the prior art because of their dependencies.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights