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 .
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 4-9, 13-17 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 4, “V_COND@(air)”, “V_COND@(raw)” and “V_COND@(water)” are not defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, “V_CAP@(air)”, “V_ CAP @(raw)” and “V_ CAP @(water)” are not defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “%soilMoistureTot refers to the average soil moisture level” contradicts with the limitation “%soilMoistureAvg refers to the average soil moisture level” from claim 6, it is unclear whether “%soilMoistureTot” refers to the average soil moisture level or “%soilMoistureAvg” refers to the average soil moisture level.
Regarding claim 13, “V_COND@(air)”, “V_COND@(raw)” and “V_COND@(water)” are not defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 14, “V_CAP@(air)”, “V_ CAP @(raw)” and “V_ CAP @(water)” are not defined by the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “%soilMoistureTot refers to the average soil moisture level” contradicts with the limitation “%soilMoistureAvg refers to the average soil moisture level” from claim 15, it is unclear whether “%soilMoistureTot” refers to the average soil moisture level or “%soilMoistureAvg” refers to the average soil moisture level.
Regarding claim 19, “V_COND@(air)”, “V_COND@(raw)”, “V_COND@(water)”, “V_CAP@(air)”, “V_ CAP @(raw)” and “V_ CAP @(water)” are not defined by the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependence.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180368339).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a soil moisture detection system, the system comprising: at least one soil moisture detection device (Fig1, soil moisture sensors 10) including: a conductive sensor configured to: detect a conductive soil moisture raw data by a DC resistance measurement on a conductive voltage divider for a soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable resistor wherein a soil resistance is inversely proportional to the soil moisture (Paragraphs 37 and 46); a capacitive sensor configured to detect a capacitive soil moisture level raw data by an AC impedance measurement on a capacitive voltage divider for the soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable capacitor wherein a soil impedance is inversely proportional to a current (Paragraphs 37 and 54-59); a network server (Fig.1, server 30) configured to provide a soil moisture detection (Paragraphs 22-24); and a user terminal (Fig.1, 28) configured to receive a soil moisture value (Paragraphs 22-24).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a soil moisture detection device, the device comprising: a processing unit (Paragraph 47); a conductive sensor configured to: detect a conductive soil moisture raw data by a DC resistance measurement on a conductive voltage divider for a soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable resistor wherein a soil resistance is inversely proportional to the soil moisture (Paragraphs 37 and 46); and a capacitive sensor configured to detect a capacitive soil moisture level raw data by an AC impedance measurement on a capacitive voltage divider for the soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable capacitor wherein a soil impedance is inversely proportional to a current (Paragraphs 37 and 54-59).
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 2-3, 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180368339) in view of Buss (U.S. Publication No. 20200359583).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Lee is silent about wherein the conductive sensor performs DC resistance measurement at a pre-set time interval.
Buss teaches wherein the conductive sensor performs DC resistance measurement at a pre-set time interval (Paragraphs 115-117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to take Lee’s moisture sensor measurement at a pre-set time interval because it would save energy and make Lee’s moisture sensor last longer.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Buss teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, the combination of Lee and Buss is silent about wherein the pre-set time interval is provided by a p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor.
However, use pMOS transistor to set time interval is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the pre-set time interval provided by a p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Lee is silent about wherein the conductive sensor performs DC resistance measurement at a pre-set time interval.
Buss teaches wherein the conductive sensor performs DC resistance measurement at a pre-set time interval (Paragraphs 115-117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to take Lee’s moisture sensor measurement at a pre-set time interval because it would save energy and make Lee’s moisture sensor last longer.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Buss teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, the combination of Lee and Buss is silent about wherein the pre-set time interval is provided by a p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor.
However, use pMOS transistor to set time interval is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the pre-set time interval provided by a p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a soil moisture detection method, the method comprising: collecting conductive raw voltage data at a conductive sensor by a DC resistance measurement on a conductive voltage divider for a soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable resistor wherein a soil resistance is inversely proportional to the soil moisture (Paragraphs 37 and 46); collecting capacitive raw voltage data at a capacitive sensor by an AC impedance measurement on a capacitive voltage divider for the soil, wherein the soil operates as a variable capacitor wherein a soil impedance is inversely proportional to a current (Paragraphs 37 and 54-59); and transmitting the conductive raw voltage data and capacitive raw voltage data to a server for determination of a conductive soil moisture level (Paragraphs 37 and 46), a capacitive soil moisture level (Paragraphs 37 and 54-59), an average soil moisture level (Paragraph 46, “The two measurement results, made with opposite current direction, will be averaged by software”).
Lee is silent about determination of a total soil moisture level.
Buss teaches determination of a total soil moisture level (Paragraph 117, “the total soil moisture value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s sensor array to measure total soil moisture level because use total value from a sensor array would reduce errors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855