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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3-10-2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-21-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Troxler’s pavement does not contemplate planting decisions, the examiner notes that Troxler was relied upon for the moisture level measurements. The reason to combine was for the benefit of Canyon and his planting fields. The soil measuring concept of Troxler is being implemented within the disclosure of Canyon.
With respect to the argument that Troxler doesn’t look at “depth” of the moisture, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Troxler, ¶65 speaks to depth measurements and dielectric constant. ¶67 then speaks to using this data in the moisture measurement mode.
The examiner notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this regard, a conclusion of obviousness may be based on common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F .2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 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 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) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canyon, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0124960, published April 28, 2022 in view of Troxler, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0268218, published September 24, 2015.
As per claims 1 and 9, Canyon discloses a device for non-contact moisture estimation, comprising:
a housing configured to be coupled to, and extend outward from, a work machine (Canyon, Fig. 8 housing and Fig. 2 work machine);
one or more sensors mounted with respect to the housing and configured to generate output signals representing variables comprising a temperature, one or more movement characteristics, and a distance between a respective sensor and a surface of ground across which the work machine travels (Canyon, Fig. 500, ¶22 and 25);
at least one radio antenna unit mounted with respect to the housing and configured to receive reflected energy from respective ground regions; and one or more processing units functionally linked to the one or more sensors and the at least one radio antenna unit, and configured to receive output signals representing the reflected energy via the at least one radio antenna unit, estimate at least one moisture condition for each respective ground region, based on ground characteristics determined at least in part on the sensed variables and the reflected energy, and generate output signals representing the estimated at least one moisture condition for each respective ground region (Canyon, ¶22-24).
Canyon fails to explicitly disclose a sensor for movement characteristics. The machine itself as well as the GPS can monitor movement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to monitor movement in order to gain the obvious benefit of determining speed and location of the work machine.
Canyon fails to disclose measuring soil moisture in more than one level.
Troxler teaches soil moisture measurements in multiple levels (¶50 analyzing multiple layers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure multiple layers in order to gain the benefit of tracking how far down the moisture goes for planting.
As per claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 Canyon as modified by Troxler discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the radio antenna units send and receive energy (Canyon, ¶22 using radar).
As per claims 5 and 17, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the output signals from the one or more processing units are provided to at least one actuator for control of one or more operations of the work machine based on the estimated at least one moisture condition (Canyon, ¶16 where adjustments are made).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to control an actuator in order to gain the benefit of allowing the work machine to respond to current conditions.
As per claims 6 and 18, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing units are configured to estimate the at least one moisture condition for each respective ground region based on modeled correlations between the at least one moisture condition and inputs comprising the sensed variables and the reflected energy (Canyon, ¶22 using multiple sensors).
As per claims 7 and 19, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the modeled correlations are between the at least one moisture condition and inputs further comprising one or more soil properties further extracted from data storage as mapped to the ground region (Canyon, ¶50).
As per claims 8 and 20, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing units are configured to estimate the at least one moisture condition for each respective ground region based at least in part on one or more soil properties further extracted from data storage as mapped to the ground region (Canyon, ¶49-53 where the data includes measurements and cloud database data).
As per claim 13, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the system of claim 9, using a vector network analyzer (Troxler, ¶30).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a network analyzer, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Canyon in processing the data correctly.
As per claim 14, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein at least one of the one or more processing units is mounted in association with the housing (Canyon, Fig. 800).
As per claim 15, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein at least one of the one or more processing units is remotely positioned with respect to the work machine and configured to communicate with the one or more sensors and the at least one radio antenna unit via at least a wireless communications network (Canyon, ¶52 and Fig. 5 showing wireless communication with the access point).
As per claim 16, Canyon as modified by Troxler further discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the output signals from the one or more processing units are provided from a first processing unit associated with the work machine to a second processing unit remotely positioned with respect to the work machine, wherein the second processing unit is configured to plan one or more subsequent work operations associated with a work area comprising the respective ground regions based on the estimated moisture conditions (Canyon, Fig. 300 where the crop management workflow is separate from the work machine).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights